While rereading the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death foretold I initially realized the Maxim relating to weather and rain. The lack of chronological order provides a unique perspective and layout allowing the events to be relayed before Santiago's death occurred even though the reader is aware of his death by the first line of the book. The imagery used describing the day of his death is very gloomy, rainy, and dark. Even his dream is described to include a light rain where gentle diction is used to create a dreamy mood. This juxtaposes the initial dark mood. I found it interesting the content in this sentence, “..and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit”(Marquez 3). This was surprising because superstitious people believe that a bird pooping on you is good luck. From the beginning of the book it can be understood that superstition plays a role in this book because of the dreams that are described in detail. In this context the bird poop seems negative which contrasts superstitious values. I also noticed the specificity of the time that everything occurred. This gives a direct chronological order of everything, even though this seems impossible to relay the time so specifically for something that happened 27 years ago. This raises some suspicion about the accuracy of the description of the past. To relates this to Kitty Genovese case everyone who was a witness to the crime told stories that didn't line up with the facts. This is due to both denial, deference of responsibility, time, and the differing of perspectives. It is strange that the time was so specific because of this. Returning to the importance of the weather the day of his death it was explained that the weather was dark, but Santiago had said it was a very beautiful day. The repetitive nature of descriptions that do not align logically causes a feeling of impending doom.
While rereading Chapter One, I noticed that the style of this book is very straightforward. For example, the book begins with: “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty…” (Marquez, 3). It is no mystery that Santiago is going to die. However, the mystery is why an entire town, filled with people who knew about the plans to kill him, was not able to prevent his death. I think this is why Marquez starts the book out with the morning of his death. Readers already know that Santiago dies, so they can focus on how and why. I think I found one example of magical realism near the beginning of the chapter. It describes an incident that occurred when a pistol went off by accident. Marquez writes, “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl had shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust,” (Marquez, 6). The situation that is described seems impossible since one bullet is unlikely to get through a wall and kill someone in a separate edifice. This somewhat impossible situation is then put into the “real-world,” which is what makes it magical realism. Why do you think Marquez uses magical realism in this book? For me, I think he does it to compare impossible situations to the most outrageous one of all, which is the killing of Santiago.
I agree that Marquez uses magical realism to compare impossible solutions to the killing of Santiago. However, I think that he doesn't believe the act of killing Santiago is necessarily outrageous, but rather the events surrounding it. By events, I'm referring to the fact that no one had actually informed Santiago, despite the entire town knowing. In fact, there wasn't much terror surrounding this event. He may also be questioning society as a whole; is society really ignorant enough to not care to stop a potential murder?
On another note, does this specific example of magical realism add anything of worthy in the story? In my opinion, it may help create a harsher tone and the motif of death, but is there more significance to this event?
Jeremy- Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a very interesting book. The title itself is quite misleading, as the reader would expect to be reading a story of events in chronological order, however immediately, the “end” is already revealed. On the first page, it says, “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (1). This is the opening line of the book, and the end; that Santiago Nasar is killed, is already revealed. As the story progresses, all the details of his murder are revealed, as if the story was written in reverse. Santiago Nasar woke up feeling “completely spattered with bird shit” (1), which shows that he did not sleep well, however he wakes up early anyways in order to wait for the bishop. This is ironic because when the bishop arrived, “it was a fleeting illusion: the bishop began to make the sign of the cross in the air opposite the crowd on the pier, and he kept on doing it mechanically afterwards, without malice or inspiration, until the boat was lost from view...” (19). The bishop does not even get off his boat to greet the people of the town, which leaves Nasar feeling cheated. Back in the beginning of the story, “Santiago Nasar put on a shirt and pants of white linen, both items unstarched...” (3). Santiago Nasar wears a formal, white outfit, which seems to seal his fate of being murdered, as white is easy to stain with blood.
Immediately, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with a tremendous amount of visual imagery and ominous diction. The narrator of the story describes the events preceding Santiago Nasar’s murder, noting how the crime was obviously going to happen, yet no one in the town had noticed or said anything. The narrator states that Santiago dreamed, “he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (1). From the very start of the novel, magic realism is introduced, as the narrator, who seems to be accustomed to the culture of Santiago’s town, notes that all of these unfavorable events foreshadowed Santiago’s brutal end. The idea that bad luck comes into play in one’s murder reflects the magic realism aspect of the novel, as there is a lack of scientific evidence that the idea is true, and it is often seen as more of a cultural idea to believe in. The “gentle drizzle” described in Santiago’s dream encapsulates ominous diction, as in literature, rain is never just rain; the rain foreshadows the sadness that will soon engulf the town. Also, when the narrator describes how Santiago awakens covered in bird feces, the usage of detailed visual imagery evokes a feeling of disgust and unluckiness, again foreshadowing the untimely death of Santiago Nasar. While his death is already blatantly said in the first sentence of the novel, the employment of visual imagery hints towards specific details about Santiago’s murder that have yet to be revealed. Does the bad luck experienced by Santiago Nasar in the hours prior to his death reflect the magical realism aspect of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” to you?
In the “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the numerous occurrences of ironic events pertains towards the motif of magical realism throughout the story. The first event was related to the dream. As Márquez describes Santiago’s dreams of the timber trees or of the tinfoil airplane, he indicates that Plácida Linero “hadn’t noticed any ominous augury in those two dreams,” (1) despite her reputation for accurately interpreting dreams. Santiago’s mother had completely missed the concept of an omen within the dreams, which is situationally ironic in the sense that she always predicted dreams correctly, except for these particular dreams before Santiago’s murder. In fact, she continued to elaborate about the dream by saying, “Any dream about birds means good health.” (4). Obviously, Santiago experienced the opposite of good health after this dream had occurred. Through the event of the dream, there were several instances where situational irony was present. These events were ironic mainly due to the fact that Plácida had only predicted these particular events wrongly. Given her reputation, the probability of a wrong prediction is so low, that it seems that these events are unrealistic, therefore contributing to the motif of magical realism.
Many of Santiago’s decisions within the chapter was due to the special occasion of the bishop’s arrival. For example, Santiago wore a shirt and pants of white linen during the day of his murder because “it was his attire for special occasions.” (3) Similarly, Santiago chose to receive the bishop through the front door because it was a door opened only for special occasions. Both of these examples hold irony within them because Santiago had made decisions according to the special occasion of the bishop’s arrival, yet it was on the day of his murder. The clothes that he wore were meant for special occasions, yet he died wearing those clothes. The front and rear doors continued to support ironic events. Divina Flor had chosen to leave the rear door unbarred for Santiago, “in case of emergency.” Even a note was placed under the door to inform Santiago of his murder. (15). However, Santiago’s death had occurred in the front door- the door that was barred. It is ironic that all of these situations had naturally fit together so well to prevent Santiago from learning about his murder. The situational irony, again, demonstrates the irregularity of these events/decisions, supporting the argument that these events were not entirely realistic.
Many parts of the detailed depiction of the events on that day rely on other people's memory. Is it possible that Márquez is associating magical realism with the examples of events shown above to ultimately question the other people's memories? Psychologically, one's memory can easily be unconsciously manipulated by someone else's influence. Perhaps he is only questioning the reliability of one's memories and not necessarily the person themselves?
Throughout the first chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Chronicles of a Death Foretold there is prevalent tree imagery. The novel begins with the quote, “She had a well-earned reputation as an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams, provided they told her before eating, but she hadn’t noticed any ominous augury in those two dreams of her son’s, or in the other dreams of trees he’d described to her on the mornings preceding his death.” (Marquez, 2). Specifically in this passage, the “dreams of trees” act as symbols alluding to the title. Additionally, this passage reflects the time period and culture of the society creating the setting of the story. Typically, professions such as dream interpreters or palm readers are viewed as scams and/or insignificant. The well-respected reputation she held as an interpreter of dreams characterize the society as less analytical and scientific and instead as one with more importance tied to faith and emotion.
This passage in the first chapter also displays irony. Despite being an “accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams,” Santiago Nasar’s mother was unable to analyze her son’s dreams and interpret his foreboding death. Despite their repeated occurrence and significance, the trees were ignored by her.
Another example of tree imagery in the first chapter was evident on page 11: “... he constructed a wooden balcony that overlooked the almond trees on the square, where Plácida Linero would sit on March afternoons to console herself for her solitude.” (Marquez, 10-11). In this passage, the almond trees represent significance to Linero as her grieving place. This is ironic both due to the fact that she disregarded the almond trees in Nasar’s dream of the tinfoil airplane and that almond trees typically represent prosperity and happiness. Nasar’s tinfoil airplane dream may also foreshadow a disaster waiting to occur. Though pristine and dainty, “flying though the almond trees without bumping anything”, there is a chance that it could collide into a tree at any moment and being tinfoil, could crumple and be destroyed easily. The ignorance and simplicity of the tinfoil airplane mirrors Santiago’s life.
When reading Chronicle of a Death Foretold, one of the first things that I noticed was the repetition of the word dream in the first paragraph. In the first paragraph some variation of the word dream occurs seven times. The dreams in the novel play an important role especially at the beginning of the book. It’s obvious that the interpretations of dreams in the story is a very important part of the lives of Santiago and his mother. The fact that she misinterpreted his dream so easily can add to the guilt of all the separate characters over Santiago’s death. Another thing that I noticed that was interesting to me was the weather. The maxim “it’s never just rain” implies that the seasons and weather in a book are usually very important to the story but in chronicle of a death foretold, no one is exactly sure what the weather was like on the fateful day.
“...he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day. No one was certain if he was referring to the state of the weather. Many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves, as was to be expected in a fine February of that period. But most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove.” (4).
This could possibly be an allusion to the idea that the murder of Santiago Nasar could be seen from many different perspectives and the answer to the question of his guilt would vary depending on who you asked. This is later shown in all the accounts of the day that Marquez goes through in the first chapter.
Jeremy- I agree with your analysis of the first chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold. When I reread the chapter, I did not notice the maxim "it's never just rain". However, after noticing many others point this out I do see it. In most stories, seasons and weather are always more significant than one would expect, and this story, as you say, is most likely no different.
Jeremy- The second chapter of Chronicle of a death foretold centers around Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. Bayardo had arrived in the town six months before his wedding. The reason he had arrived into the town was to find “someone to marry” (28), ending up deciding to marry Angela Vicario. When they first met, Angela was very annoyed at Bayardo because he “bought all the tickets in the raffle” (32) when she was raffling off her music box. Later, Angela found the music box as a gift to her from Bayardo, even though she had no idea how Bayardo knew it was her birthday. When Angela told her brothers to return the gift back to Bayardo, her brothers ended up becoming friends with Bayardo. Bayardo is characterized as a rich and charming man that everyone seems to like. Angela was the only person who did not like Bayardo, but her family loved the idea of Angela marrying a very rich man. They “imposed on her the obligation to marry a man whom she had barely seen” (38). By using the word “obligation”, Angela is shown as having little control over her own life. When Pedro Vicario asked Angela “who it was” (53), Angela looked for the answer “in the shadows” (53). This use of dark imagery matches the mood in this section of the story because this is where the reader discovers why Santiago Nasar is killed.
I agree with you that she really had no control over her life, especially because he was a rich man with a higher status than she has currently. I wonder what the significance of his arrival six months is before the wedding, and why was it in August?
In Chapter 2 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez emphasizes the significance of honor and respect in men, families, and women. As Bayardo San Román arrives in “saddlebags decorated in silver,” the visual imagery conveys that Bayardo comes from a rich background. He also had the “waist of a novice bullfighter” and “golden eyes.” (27) Together, these features combine to illustrate a powerful, intriguing man. Due to his rich background, he presents himself in a way that yields respect from others and nothing less. This situation is the same for his father, General Petronio San Román. When General Petronio San Román arrived, “he wore the Medal of Valor on his lapel and carried a cane with the national shield carved on the pommel.” (37). Not only did he have a wealthy origin, but his status within the country compelled him to act as if he deserves honor/respect. Although he may certainly deserve it, his personality portrays a certain amount of arrogance as well. For both men, they believe that they should always be treated with honor/respect.
Honor and respect is also a core value to the family of Angela Vicario. When the family forced Angela to marry Bayardo, Márquez indicates that “the parents’ decisive argument was that a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny.” (38) Angela’s family essentially argues that a poor family must obey a rich family who can give Angela a proper future, despite the lack of love. This characterizes the entire family as one who values honor and respect more so than one person’s happiness.
Lastly, the main type of honor within this book is a woman’s honor. Before the wedding, when Bayardo arrives two hours late, Angela comments about the possibility of being left at the altar. The narrator follows by saying, “Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown.” (45) The hyperbole that being left at the altar is the most shameful event for a woman exaggerates the consequences of losing honor/respect. A woman could easily be disrespectfully ridiculed, if she were the type of woman to be left at the altar. Likewise, a woman would lose her honor if she married not as a virgin. The extremity of this event is demonstrated when Pura Vicario found out about Angela’s loss of virginity before marriage. Angela describes, “The only thing I can remember is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such rage that I thought she was going to kill me.” The vivid imagery of the beating exemplifies the physical and emotional pain attached to losing one’s virginity before marriage; that is the ultimate loss of honor.
Throughout the entire chapter, there are many instances where characters value respect/honor over everything else. Without respect/honor, they have no place in the world and would often be looked down by society.
I agree with your analysis! Honor serves as a key motivating factor towards the murder of Santiago Nasar. While that may be seen as unorthodox in modern-day society, honor definitely acts as a key component in major decisions in this novel. I feel like a woman’s honor revolves around the “feminine” traits that all wives were expected to possess during this time period, such as their virginity as you had mentioned. I presume that it was very difficult for women to protect and defend their own honor at this time, as shown when the Vicario brothers went out to kill Santiago Nasar. This emphasizes the dominant male role in society. It is also strange in that Angela’s act of losing her virginity impacted the family as a whole, sparking the need for the Vicario brothers to commit a crime. Angela’s actions affecting the whole family display the communal and tight-knit family aspect of this time period as well! In modern-day western cultures, I feel as if our society takes more of an individualist approach, hence honor does not matter when compared to one's social identity, thereby explaining why the extent to which the Vicario brothers go to protect their family's honor seems outlandish.
In the second chapter the text revolves around Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario’s relationship, or the lack of one. The difference in cultural value regarding marriage is very evident in this chapter. Bayardo decides that he is going to marry Angela at first sight when he sees her across the square walking with her mother holding artificial flowers. The flowers symbolize the artificiality of their relationship. The flowers fulfill the stereotypical relationship, but because they are fake it represents his insincere motives. From outside it might look like it is a perfect relationship, but it is flawed. Bayardo came to town looking for marriage and because of ease and her appearance he chose Angela. He has no true feelings for her and she doesn't want to be with him, but she has no choice. Bayardo is able to marry her because of his display of money to her family. Angelas family comes to the conclusion without her that because he is from a richer family she will be better off marrying him because marriage can change social class. It is emphasized that Angela has no desire to marry him. This implies that she might try to say something to try to get herself out of her arranged marriage. No one in the town knew exactly who he was, so people began to fill the empty spaces. Marquez writes, “It came to be said that he wiped out villages and sown terror in Casanare as troop commander, that he had escaped from Devil’s island, that he had been seen in Pernambuco trying to make a living with a pair of trained bears, and that he had salvaged the remains of a Spanish galleon loaded with gold in the Windward Passage” (33). Although these are very exaggerated scenarios it still supports the idea that it is intrinsic for humans to fill in the unknown with past experience or probable scenarios. This happens when people aren't able to remember the entire story and unconsciously fill in the missing pieces.
I agree with your analysis! Angela's relationship with Bayardo is incredibly shallow. Bayardo has the power to rule over Angela due to his money and looks, which forces Angela to confess about her nonexistent virginity in order to escape the situation. I believe that Márquez is ridiculing the importance of social status within society. The arrival of Bayardo has been consistently exaggerated throughout the entire chapter and he is thought of to be mysterious, even though he is just simply a rich man. The built-up tension pertaining to his mysterious characteristics doesn't ever reach a climax, rather is released. This unusual amount of tension may relate to the fact that Márquez is commenting on the realistic unimportance of wealthy men such as Bayardo.
“Chronicle of a Death Foretold” represents a piece of literature that truly reflects the time period and culture in which Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote it in. The relationship that develops and falls between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario reflect the marriage dynamic -- which lacks love -- that seems to be common during that time period in Colombia. Angela Vicario herself, “confessed to me that he’d managed to impress her, but for reasons opposite those of love. ‘I detested conceited men, and I’d never seen one so stuck up” (29). Despite Angela’s hatred of egocentric men, Bayardo San Roman possessed beneficial qualities and traits that would ensure Angela’s future, as the narrator’s mother even claimed, “‘It also seems that he’s swimming in gold’” (27). In establishing the stereotypes of a man and a woman and the relationship that develops between the two, Marquez crafts this novel to fit into the time period in which it is written. While it may not be common in modern times and in western cultures for a woman to be “courted” by a man as Bayardo courts Angela, the relationship between the two is particularly specific to the early 20th century in a Latin American country. Thus, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” serves as social commentary, not just for the expected commentary on whether or not the town citizens should have stopped the murder, but rather on the relationship that had ignited the motivation behind the murder in the first place. Had it not been so important for a woman to be a virgin prior to marrying her husband during this time period, the Vicario twins would not have had a need to defend their family’s honor and kill Santiago Nasar.
I agree with your analysis of the marriage dynamic between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. Similarly as in many other pieces of literature such as Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew”, marriage is often affected or inflicted by factors besides love, which often comes secondary or maybe not even at all. Wealth, reputation, and honor are outstanding stakes in what was deemed a successful marriage. In “Chronicles of a Death Foretold” Garcia Marquez introduces the idea of honor and these societal predispositions of virginity and purity in marriage in order to set the scene of Santiago Nasar’s murder and reflect on the Colombian society at the time.
In the second chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” materialism is prevalent in how the characters are influenced in making decisions or judgement. An example of this is displayed when Bayardo San Roman pursues a wife. Many times throughout descriptions of his character, materialistic views of his appearance, social status, and wealth is noted. He is even grudgingly accepted by fiancee Angela Vicario despite her general dislike of him, even comparing him to the devil. “Only a long time after the unfortunate wedding did she confess to me that she actually knew him when it was already too late to correct the October letter, and that his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear in her. ‘He reminded me of the devil,’ she told me, ‘but you yourself had told me that things like that shouldn’t be put into writing.’” (Marquez, 27-28). Additionally, Angela Vicario believed Bayardo to be self-obsessed and stuck-up. “She confessed to me that he’d managed to impress her, but for reasons opposite those of love. ‘I detested conceited men, and I’d never seen one so stuck-up,’ she told me, recalling that day.” (29-30)
Materialism in “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” also reflects the time period and setting of the story. Similarly to William Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” male figures seen as more dominant were expected to provide for their wives and present riches and wealth in order to assert their power. Poor individuals with little to inherit and little to boast were always overshadowed by wealthier, better dressed men. This is the same case for Bayardo San Roman, who is described for his good clothes and good looks. Even his silver accessories reflect his social status. This is present in the first page of the chapter: “He arrived on the weekly boat with some saddlebags decorated with silver that matched the buckle of his belt and the rings on his boots. He was around thirty years old, but they were well-concealed, because he had the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter. He arrived wearing a short jacket and very tight trousers, both of natural calfskin, and kid gloves of the same color.” (25-26). San Roman’s golden eyes and skin tone, as well as his decorated silver saddlebags, rings, and belt reflect his wealth. Marquez uses this metallic, coin-like diction to describe his character as one in a position of power and masculinity.
In addition to boasting his wealth through appearance, Bayardo San Roman also uses it to purchase extravagant gifts for Angela Vicario. He purchases every raffle ticket in a drawing for a music box, which he later gives to impress her.
I think one of the most prominent issues of Chapter Two of Chronicle of a Death foretold was the value of honor and what it meant to the people of the story. Most of the conflicts aroused throughout Chapter Two brought up the honor of an individual. One clearest example of this was the whole ordeal involving Angela’s virginity. First, it was considered unhonorable for a man to mess up when hiding his snake in the bush, as seen in the quote on page 38, “…that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable in doing anything without the woman’s help.” The other questions of honor were for the woman. Simply having your virginity was a topic of honor. If you lost your virginity, you were often rejected by your family: “…the only thing that I can remember was is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such a rage that I thought she was going to kill me.” You were even rejected by your spouse, which is clearly seen, as Bayardo San Roman rejects her as a spouse, and outright gives her back to her parents. As we find out in other parts of the book, Nasar is eventually killed because he disrespected the honor of Angela by taking her virginity. This just shows how much honor was taken seriously and raises the question: does honor excuse the crimes that occur in the book?
What I found interesting about this chapter was the very end. This book is structured sort of backwards, in that it starts with showing us that Santiago Nasar is going to die and then eventually dies and then the rest of the book goes through the murder. The suspense in this book mostly comes from figuring out what crime Santiago committed and if he is or isn’t truly guilty. The end of chapter two plays into this suspense because it tells us the reason he was murdered but it’s stated in such a way that it makes us question whether or not Santiago actually committed the crime. The little paragraph before the very last line that Angela Vicario says shows that she’s very flippant about picking his name. It talks about how, “She only took the time necessary to say the name. She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other,and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written.” (47). This shows that she most likely might be lying about who actually took her virginity, and that she just called out his name because that’s the first one she could pick out in the possible people that she knew.
Then that makes us question, did Nasar deserve to die? Even if he had been the one to take her virginity, would that be a reason for such a brutal death. Disregarding the whole culture of machisimo, it may seem like it, at least to us. What do you think?
The reoccurring concept of the unreliability and uncertainty of society’s perception towards certain events affirms the motif of magical realism. The symbolism of alcohol and the weather pertains to the inaccurate reports of the events that occurred on the day of the murder. Alcohol is constantly present throughout the chapter, first with the brothers, then with the narrator’s brother. When the brothers had declared that they were going to kill Santiago Nasar, many butchers indicated that they “thought it was drunkards’ baloney.” (60) The reputation associated with drunk people is that all actions and words should not be trusted if a person is drunk. The person’s actions could be so out of the usual norm that, in fact, it could appear magically realistic. Márquez continues to emphasize the uncertainty that alcohol brings when the narrator comments on his brother and says, “He’d drunk so much that his memories of that encounter were always quite confused…My brother doesn’t remember it.” (79) The effect of alcohol leads to unusual actions that are not necessarily realistic for the person, which, consequentially, appears magical. Alcohol symbolizes the overall extreme unreliability of people’s actions and accounts of the day of the murder, leading to the motif of magical realism. Likewise, the varying accounts of weather also accentuates the unreliability of those accounts. In one account, Colonel Lázaro Aponte claimed, “I can remember with certainty that it was almost five o’clock and it was beginning to rain.” (64) On the other hand, Pablo Vicario observed that “it wasn’t raining.” Pedro followed and indicated that the weather was “just the opposite. There was a sea wind and you could still count the stars with your finger.” (71) Clearly, these two descriptions are opposites, while both sides stated their observations with certainty. The possible rain itself also commonly foreshadows a bad event. However, if the weather was “just the opposite,” it could also be the eye of the storm, when everything is calm. Nevertheless, no matter the interpretation of the weather itself, the weather also symbolizes the unreliability of society’s perception of the events on the day of the murder. This drastic difference between one description and the other is extremely unrealistic. Because the events are so unrealistic, they ultimately relate to the topic of magical realism.
I agree with you, it’s very interesting the way that all the people’s perspectives on the day changed so drastically. In a way, it’s strange but in a another way, it also makes more sense that they don’t really remember the minutia of the day since it was so long ago. If you ask any person randomly what the weather was like 27 years ago, I doubt that anyone would be able to remember what the weather was like specifically on that day. In another sense I get how the weather can be used as a symbol for the changing realities of the witnesses. I can also see how it can possibly also be a symbol for the changing opinions on whether or not Santiago Nasar was guilty of the “crime” he was being murdered for.
I thought your interpretation of the weather was really interesting because I had not really considered it. To me, I did not really see the events as an example of magical realism, but I agree that the events do seem unrealistic. Do you think the alcohol has another purpose other than making the whole ordeal seem unreal? I thought Marquez was making some kind of social commentary on how unreliable the public may be in these kinds of situations. It is interesting how Marquez based this book off of a real life situation that occurred in the past since the whole thing does seem very unreal. I think the symbols are a bit unclear in this book, but I do not know if he does this on purpose. It could be because he wants his audience to focus more on how Santiago Nasar died and why.
One of the things that was interesting to me about this chapter was that all the witnesses seemed to be more guilty than the actual brothers. In the beginning of the chapter they say, “‘We killed him openly,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor.’” This quote along with the paragraph following it that states how the Vicario brothers showed no remorse about the murder once they were in prison, shows how they fully believed that they were innocent and that they did nothing wrong. This chapter also repeatedly mentions how the Vicario brothers were drunk during the murder and this fact is brought up over and over by the witnesses using it as an excuse as to why they didn’t try and stop the murder. They used the fact that the brothers were drunk to say that they didn’t think they would actually commit the crime and that it was just drunkards fooling around. It’s strange that the bystanders had more remorse than the brothers. It’s not explicitly stated in the book that they have remorse over the crime but the fact that they try and use their inebriated state as an excuse as to why they didn’t interfere and this alludes to them having guilt over not doing anything to stop something that was explicitly going to happen. Since the excuse of the two brothers being drunk seems more of an excuse than an actual reason, it makes me wonder what the actual hidden reason is that no one decided to actively try and stop the murder from happening.
Jeremy- I agree that this chapter seemed to depict the witnesses as more guilty than the brothers. In the one morning when the brothers went to the butcher shop, it said that 22 people heard about the murder, but did nothing. Not only are the witnesses shown as guilty, but the book also makes the brothers seem not guilty because they continue to say that they were defending their sister's honor.
Jeremy- “There had never been a death more foretold. After their sister revealed the name to them, the Vicario twins went to the bin in the pigsty where they kept their sacrificial tools and picked out the two best knives: one for quartering, ten inches long by two and a half inches wide, and the other for trimming, seven inches long by one and a half inches wide. They wrapped them in a rag and went to sharpen them at the meat market, where only a few stalls had begun to open. There weren't very many customers that early, but twenty-two people declared they had heard everything said, and they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over to hear them. Faustino Santos, a butcher friend, saw them enter at three-twenty, when he had just opened up his innards table, and he couldn't understand why they were coming on a Monday and so early, and still in their dark wedding suits.” (Marquez 57-58). In this passage, the Vicario twins are bringing their knives to be sharpened. It is written that “there had never been a death more foretold”, as well as “twenty-two people declared they had heard everything”. This is interesting because so many people had heard about the brothers’ plan to murder Nasar, but do nothing about it. This brings up a question on whether being a bystander is guilty as well. It is interesting how the brothers wrapped their knives “in a rag and went to sharpen them at the meat market”. This is interesting, because they cover up their knives, as if they are trying to hide their plan. However, at this time, the whole town understands that they plan to murder Nasar. The use of butcher knives can symbolize as well as foreshadow Nasar’s gruesome death and getting killed like an animal. Dark imagery is used to describe the brothers’ “dark wedding suits”. Dark colors are often associated with evil or something bad. This can also help to foreshadow their evil action of murdering Nasar.
I do think it's interesting that they bothered to cover their blades at all, seeing as they were just telling everyone. After their first blades are taken, they get new knives and wrap them in newspaper, again attempting to cover them, when very clearly everyone knows what's happening. I think the reason this was done was to show that the Vicario brothers were still very sane, sober and rational at this time. They very clearly believe that what they are doing is in the right, and they feel no remorse for it. They're covering their blades not because they're trying to hide their plan, but because only a crazy person would walk around with a knife out, and lets be honest, it'd be pretty dangerous. What happens if you slip? Point being, the Vicario brothers are covering their knives, not because they're hiding their plan, but because no rational, calm person would walk around with a bare weapon.
I was incredible struck by the sentiments made by Clotilde when the twins showed up at her shop for the second time. It is at this point she becomes very aware that they are going to kill Nasar or at least do something violent. Seeing them, she was "frightened" because they looked like children, and "only children are capable of everything" (44% on kindle). Whether she means that children have potential & the ability to do anything they set their mind to, or that only children are foolish enough to try anything and everything they think of is up to the reader.
What I found really powerful about this is that it frames this killing in a creepy light. Thanks to books and movies like The Shining, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, and Children of the Corn, and games like Bioshock and Fran Bow, our society has an irrational fear of little children, especially if they're twins, especially-especially if they have knives. Comparing something so innocent to the site or cause of something horrifying and gruesome creates a startling juxtaposition. I mean, children with knives? In black clothes? Being brutally honest like children do ("I am going to kill Santiago Nasar")? It takes the malice and anger out of the actions of the Vicario brothers.
Why is this done? Good question. Personally, I'm not sure, but I really thought this was interesting.
There are three distinct characteristics of children that are apparent in the Vicario brothers: innocence, loyalty, and implausibility. The fact that none of the townspeople genuinely felt like the brothers had the actual capability to murder another human being elicited the somewhat innocent trait present in both of the brothers. They were not seen as awful human beings, instead, they were seen as righteous and harmless, just like children. Going along with this is the implausibility of the brothers. Again, none of the townspeople believed that the Vicario brothers would follow through with this threat against Santiago Nasar. Likewise, children are often not believed due to both their lack of experience and lack of knowledge. Finally, children are also seen as loyal, as they are often egocentric and have a more closed-minded view on the world and others’ perspectives. The murder itself is not what the Vicario brothers focused on. The brothers were determined to protect their family’s honor. In doing so, Pablo and Pedro did not think that they were doing any wrong by killing Santiago Nasar, rather, they were committing an act out of loyalty.
Religion plays an important role in the novel, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”; after all, the first place the Vicario brothers head to directly after their crime is the church. They immediately surrendered to the priest, still covered in blood and sweating like pigs. One quote reads, “‘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 dialogue said by Pedro admitting that the brothers had killed Santiago, yet claiming their innocence directly after emphasizes the cultural norm in which honor was an extremely significant title to defend, as it is even considered to be above the law. When Father Amador relates the murder to religion, declaring “perhaps before God”, he contributes to the cultural norm in which the murder is considered to be okay because of the motivation behind it. Next, Pablo claims that the brothers are innocent before both God and men, insinuating that he believes that he and Pedro will not be be charged with murder nor will the be sent to jail. This belief reinforces the idea that murder when defending honor is justified (at least in this time period and culture). Also, because the brothers had immediately went to the church minutes after murdering Santiago, it highlights the importance of the church and religion in the lives of the Colombian townspeople. By heading to the church and confessing as soon as they could, the brothers must have wanted to feel “cleansed” from their brutal act and they may have even been seeking justification and support for their actions.
Why do you think defending honor is not as prominent of an issue nowadays (unless Colombia is still all about the murdering someone to protect their family’s honor)?
I definitely agree that religion plays an important role. In a sense, their religion almost justifies the murder, because the loss of honor without a consequence as great as a murder would be more of a sin than plain murder. The value of honor is a essentially a result of their culture, therefore their religion. A large majority of Colombia were Catholic at the time, signifying that many people shared the same views. However, religion is much more widespread nowadays, which allow people to contrast in ideas and values. I believe that the difference between everyone's cultures result in a difference of values, especially pertaining to honor. Though some may still believe that a murder is justifiable to the loss of honor, a greater amount of society would disagree nowadays. The disagreement would eventually lead to chaos, so this potential chaos restricts people from defending honor to the extremity of murder.
“[Clotilde] was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them.” (57) In the setting of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, we see the recurring importance of gender roles set by the society. It is evident with Angela and her independence as well as with in the Vicario brothers. The pressure of defending honor within the society and the masculinity involved with that concept is very high. The two brothers go around town proclaiming their plans to kill Santiago Nasar with the intention that someone would stop them. Murder contradicts the brother's strong Catholic religious base as well as with the majority of sane humans’ moral codes. Yet here we see that honor and upholding the family name conquers anything moral or religious, bringing us to a societal issue and a theme in the book of the contradiction between religion and family, pride, and honor. The fact that the Vicario brothers feel the need to brutally murder a man solely for the purpose to prove and uphold their masculinity shows us a lot about the society that this novel is based in. Marquez adds this in to prove an overall message to the reader about the problem within society and the unreasonable standards and demands of gender roles. Marquez has the confidence of the Vicario brothers and the openness of their crime as a mask of their insecurities and doubts within the societal rule, therefore giving a message to the reader on the gender based standards of society.
For the Chronicle of a Death Foretold group projects, my group and I were assigned to Chapter Three. We investigated how someone’s situation can influence or justify their actions. While reading the chapter, I found the motif of honor to be very interesting. Pablo and Pedro Vicario head out to kill Santiago as soon as their sister, Angela, accuses him of taking her virginity. It is Angela’s newlywed husband, Bayardo San Román, that finds out she is not a virgin and returns her to her mother’s household in the middle of the night. Although it never becomes clear whether Santiago is guilty of this act or not, it is obvious that Angela losing her virginity before marriage is a big deal. It is a big enough deal that her brothers headed out to kill the person that supposedly caused their sister to be disgraced. I found it really interesting that neither of the brothers think they did anything wrong. In fact, they do not seem to regret anything. Marquez writes: “‘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). Here, the motive for the murder of Santiago becomes clearer. Honor is very important in this time period and society. I thought it was interesting how the concept of “family honor” justifies the murder of Santiago because he was accused of taking Angela’s virginity. Father Amador even justifies the brothers’ murder by inferring that they may be innocent before God.
I went through a very similar thought process as you did when it was revealed that the Vicario brothers were justified for killing Santiago. This is very strange and culturally different to the world we live in today. I also think it was interesting that the truth about if he died because of false information or if he had taken her virginity was never uncovered. This leaves a unsettling mood and also shows his commentary on the flaws of society.
I agree with your analysis of this passage in the third chapter and your ideas regarding the significance of honor in “Chronicle of a Death Foretold.” Within the society that this story is set in, the pressure of defending honor is very high, especially for men. Men are expected to act as the knights-in-shining-armor to defend the virtue and virginities of young women. Had Pedro and Pablo Vicario done nothing and ignored the rumors of Santiago Nasar stealing away Angela’s virginity, both brothers would likely have been dubbed as weak and dishonorable for failing to protect the family name and reputation. Despite murder contradicting moral and strong religious code, honor and sacredness of the family appear to outweigh both moral obstacles for the twins.
In Chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez employs vivid visual imagery, dehumanizing diction, and characterization to illustrate the society’s lack of respect for one another, and in this case, Santiago Nasar. In effect, Márquez creates a critical tone, leaving readers questioning the brutality and selfishness of members of society. At the beginning of the chapter, the narrator notes that “the body had been exposed to public view in the center of the living room.” (84). Although the phrase doesn’t describe vivid visual imagery in itself, with the knowledge that Santiago was stabbed so many times that his entrails were falling out, the words depict a horrendous scene. It seems incredibly disrespectful to allow the body to lay there inside a home. Additionally, the body is in plain view for the public to scrutinize, almost as if it were in a museum. The least they could have done was to cover his body up with a blanket. The description of the autopsy was even more atrocious. The narrator details, “Half of the cranium had been destroyed by the trepanation, and the lady-killer face that death had preserved ended up having lost its identity. Furthermore, the priest had pulled out the sliced up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail.” (88) Father Amador seemingly had no intent to preserve Santiago’s body. He had destroyed his head with trepanation, a surgical method involving drilling a hole into one’s head, rid his face of all identity, and disposed of the rest of his intestines. As noted before, although Santiago’s body was brutalized, his facial expression displayed his confidence and contentment with life. However, the only graceful remains of his body was stolen away from him during this autopsy. In addition, both vivid visual imagery and dehumanizing diction are incorporated when Father Amador tossed his intestines into the garbage pail. It appears that Father Amador had absolutely no respect for Santiago’s body. As uneasy the intestines may be to a person who does not specialize in the medical field, they must still have a sense of morality regarding the treatment of a murder victim. The lack of respect is emphasized when Father Amador comments, “he had only a few years of life left to him in any case.” (87). Father Amador’s statement is incredibly dehumanizing, making Santiago seem as if he wasn’t a human, rather an animal that doesn’t deserve much from life. The rest of the town was also characterized as people who had no sympathy for Santiago Nasar. As the narrator indicated, “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Román.” (96). Even if Santiago did take away Angela Vicario’s honor, did he deserve to die in such a savage manner? Though honor is prevalent as an important value in all of the townspeople, they never truly considered Santiago’s side of the story, where he didn’t steal Angela Vicario’s honor. In fact, they didn’t have much respect for Santiago’s body either, despite his seemingly decent character when he was alive. Through the townspeople’s lack of respect for Santiago, Márquez generalizes this concept to pertain to society’s lack of respect for each other. The lack of respect also translates to the abundance of selfishness. It was selfish that people had failed to inform Santiago of his own death, and even more selfish for Father Amador to throw Santiago’s intestines into the garbage, simply because he couldn’t bare to deal with them. Márquez illustrates the brutality and apathy of society.
In Chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez utilizes repetition to emphasize the extent to which the death was foretold. However, he brings up the question: is the death foretold because of the loss of honor, or is it foretold because of other people’s inability to prevent it? Throughout the chapter, the world “dead” is repeated several times, specifically describing the state of Santiago Nasar before he even died. In the first situation, Pedro Vicario says, “Don’t bother… No matter what, he’s as good as dead already,” (120) when replying to Indalecio Pardo after Clotilde Armenta persuaded Indalecio to warm Santiago. In this sense, Pedro most likely refers to how a man who takes away a person’s honor is a dead man, even if he isn’t physically dead yet. This simultaneously foreshadows Santiago’s death based on the twins’ determination to kill him. Later in the chapter, “dead” is repeated when Pedro Vicario argues, “Dead men can’t shoot.” (128) Similarly, the phrase illustrates the twins’ confidence in their killing of Santiago Nasar based on his previous actions regarding honor. Lastly, Margot described Santiago as, “he already had the face of a dead man.” (130) when Santiago had passed by her well before he died. In this case, although she may be referring to how Santiago is bound to die since he took away Angela Vicario’s honor, her statement also implies that because she thought he looked like a dead man, then there was no use in warning him. Ironically, if she had warned him, then he may not have died. Margot uses the importance of honor to justify Santiago’s death, but in reality, does her decision of not warning him essentially cause his death? The repetition of “dead” strongly establishes the extent to which the death was foretold. Clearly, it was foretold because a man who takes away a woman’s honor is destined to die. However, as all of the townspeople recognized this fact, did their actions, or lack thereof, essentially cause the murder? If all of them had attempted to warn Santiago of his death, wouldn’t the death become much less foretold? I wonder if Márquez is indicating that the death is foretold due to the loss of honor or the people’s incapability to warn Santiago of his death.
Throughout the chronicle, names have held importance and symbolism, with many being biblical allusions and references. After doing a bit of research, I thought I'd share some of the more potent ones with you guys.
-Santiago Nasar: Santiago translates to "saint," potentially used to indicate Nasar's innocence in the crime the Vicario brothers implicate him in. Nasar could potentially be a connection to Nazareth, a city in Israel where Jesus was born. Some draw meaning from this, that Jesus foretold his own death and this book starts with "there was never a death more foretold," but I leave you up to decide that one for yourself.
-Clotilde Armenta: Clotilde was the name of a saint, known for almsgiving and mercy. Saint Clotilde was vererated especially as guarding the lame, those suffering from ill-tempered husbands and (get this!) those who suffer VIOLENT DEATHS. Huh. See any connections? Clotilde in CODF seems to be the one of the only ones who tries to do anything to stop Nasar's death, further linking her with his death.
-Cristo Bedoya: First, if you are a little unfamiliar with your biblical knowledge, allow me to fill you in real quick. Jesus Christ, the son of God, suffered the pain and sin of every person in the world to save all of us. Cristo, which translates to Christ, is the ONLY person who actually acts and attempts to save Nasar. He runs all over town, searching for Nasar to tell him about the plot (which, if we want to analyse this further, could be linked with the parable in the bible about the lost sheep; if the shepard [the shepard is representative of Jesus] loses one of his sheep, he will leave the 99 sheep to go find the one and save it. Make of that what you will.). If anyone could be Nasar's savior, it's Cristo.
Pablo & Pedro Vicario: Pablo and Pedro are the Spanish variants of Paul and Peter. Peter was one of Christ's original 12 apostles, while Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (originally known as Saul). This is reflected in their roles in the story. It is Pedro who originally gives the brothers their mission, mirroring Peter being one of Christ's first followers. However, he later does not want to go through with the murder, potentially referencing that at Christ's trial before his crucifixion, Peter denied knowing Christ 3 times. This is when Pablo steps in, insisting that they go through with it. This matches Paul joining the Church later, who beforehand had been persecuting members of the Church.
There are way, WAY more meanings with the names, these were some of the cooler ones I found. Let me know if you have different interpretations or discover meanings with different names.
Jeremy- Your analysis of the names used in this story was very interesting. I had not thought that the names used would have such significance. This makes me wonder if the author had written this on purpose, or if he just used random names?
I think it’s interesting that the names have such a significance in the book. I remember talking about Pablo and Pedro in class and how they were parallels to Peter and Paul from the bible, but the fact that Santiago’s name means saint is really interesting. Especially since we never really find out if he was truly the one to take Angela Vicario’s virginity or rather if she just pulled his name from the clouds in her mind and pinned the blame on him to save the real culprit. Another idea that would be interesting to look into would be the fact that Marquez used a few names that were the names of people in his own life that he knew personally and the impact that had on the story.
Jeremy- Chapter four of Chronicles of a Death Foretold depicts the aftermath of Nasar’s death. The way he was murdered was so gruesome that his body ended up looking like food to the dogs, which were “aroused by the smell of death” (84). Nasar’s body was saved from the dogs, but ironically ended up being autopsied by the public, which “was a massacre” (86). The smell created by Nasar’s dead body continued to be a presence on everything. Even the Vicario brothers “could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up” (90). The smell could be a symbol for guilt, as the brothers were unable to sleep and seemed to be poisoned while the smell remained. As the smell remained throughout the whole town, one could assume that this symbol for guilt meant that the whole town was guilty in some way, because although everyone knew of the Vicario brothers’ plan, no one stopped them. This could be an example of magical realism; the smell of Santiago Nasar lingering in the jail cell. Another example could be Bayardo San Roman not reading any of the letters sent by Angela. Although Bayardo never reads any of Angela’s letters, it seems that the gesture of sending letters was enough for Bayardo to return.
The smell of Santiago Nasar’s decaying body symbolizing guilt is a thought-provoking idea! I too noticed the guilt evident in all of the townspeople, but who can blame them? Each and every one of them had the ability to prevent the murder from occurring, but did anybody do anything genuinely helpful? Of course there are people like Clotilde Armenta who took their knives away, but everyone viewed the Vicario brothers’ threats as a joke. Regardless, even if the brothers appeared extremely serious towards following through with their threats, the overarching motivation of honor (maybe even disliking in Divina Flor’s case), led no one to stop the murder. Once the townspeople had seen the aftermath of the atrocious murder, the guilt is extremely apparent, especially through the omnipresent symbol of the heinous smell of Santiago’s body.
I think the smell of his body symbolizing guilt is really interesting! After reading your post the first thought that occurred to me was that in a way the smell was kind of punishing the whole town because they could be seen as guilty for not saying anything about the death. Like almost everyone knew that it was going to happen and it's interesting to think that the townspeople also felt guilty and not just the twins.
Jeremy- In the final chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold, essentially the same story is told with different information. In this chapter, we learn about the many unlucky events that occur, which eventually lead to Santiago Nasar’s death. We also learn about how much of an impact Nasar’s death had on everyone because “for years we couldnt talk about anything else” (113). Divina Flor has a vision that she saw “Santiago Nasar come in through the door on the square and go up the open stairs to the bedrooms...He was wearing his white suit and carrying...a bouquet of roses” (138). This vision foreshadows Nasar entering the house carrying his guts. An example of magical realism in this chapter could be that that everyone except for Santiago Nasar knew about his death. Nasar was murdered as if he was an animal. Pig knives were used to cut him, and he was cut to the point where his guts fell out of his body. Although everyone in the town is to blame because of their knowledge of the brothers’ actions, it seems like the combination of all the bad coincidences and Divina Flor’s vision sealed Santiago Nasar’s fate, and his death could not be prevented in any way.
Gabriel Marquez focuses in describing Santiago Nasar’s dead body during chapter four. The description is loathly detailed and is repeatedly displayed to the audience. The vivid imagery used to describe the body can be seen when Gabriel writes, “In the afternoon a syrup colored liquid begin to flow from the wounds, drawing flies, and a purple blotch appeared on the upper lip and spread out very slowly, like a shadow of a cloud on water, up to the hairline” (74). The reader experiences a nauseous sensation while reading through these unpleasant passages. The specific detail emphasizes how sickening this situation was, from the people who never bothered to warn Santiago, to those who encouraged double standards for women in society. If women weren't born to be married off, and be a virgin, the shame of Angela Vicario and her family wouldn't have existed. The foul diction and the distasteful imagery exaggerates Santiago's cruel death and the mistreatment to his corpse. The amateur autopsy indicates how little everyone cared for him. Another idea that was extremely prevalent in this chapter was how the smell of Santiago's dead body seemed to haunt the people in the town. The smell was first introduced when the narrator says, “ In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness” (73). The odor symbolizes the unfortunate event and the town realizes their mistakes, and are haunted by the lingering death.
Blog #5
Chapter five focuses on the impact of Santiago Nasar’s death on the society. This is ironic since the people in the town didn't even care for Santiago's death nor did they ever get involved. Gabriel Marquez writes, “Santiago Nasar’s fiancee, ran away out of spite”, “Aura Villeros... suffered a spasm of the bladder”, “Don Relogio de la Flor... didn't survive the shock” (97). These are reports of multiple people in the town, and how Santiago's death impacted their lives. The lack of action by these people and the rest of society haunted them. If only one person didn't assume that Santiago knew of his fate, and found him in time, then this crisis would have been avoided. The reader's experience guilt, sorrow, and confusion through the impact of Santiago's death. when people figured about the twins plot to kill Santiago, no one believed it was impotent or that the twins would have the courage to kill someone. However, later it was said, “ He (the investigative magistrate) had to ask for troop reinforcements to control the crowd that was pouring into testify without having been summoned, everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” (98). Suddenly everyone wants to be involved and wants to contribute their opinion to the authorities. When humans perceive a situation that is unimportant to their lives, they do not find the energy to look for other or they don't even bother. However, when something affects someone directly, suddenly they find time to place the utmost importance on it.
(responding to your Blog #4) You mention that the poorly done autopsy represents how little everyone cared about Nasar. I personally disagree; it is mentioned on more than one occasion that he was generally well liked; only Victoria Guzman seems to be the one that hates him. The autopsy (in my opinion) shows how much this incident changed this town forever. Some of the townsfolk are reported as having physical reactions to the gruesome murder; Hortensia Boute goes crazy with grief that the murder was somehow her fault, Don Regelio dies of shock, etc. It's mentioned that, for a while, the murder was all they could think about, dominating their daily lives. The town is even described as an open wound. When everything "heals" and life returns to normal, it's not the same. The autopsy absolutely butchers Nasar; he is borderline unrecognizeable after he's been cut open and had his guts pulled out and stitched back together again. In the same way, the town, after this horrible case, can never be the same again.
“The priest had studied medicine and surgery at Salamanca, but had entered the seminary before he was graduated, and even the mayor knew that his autopsy would have no legal standing. Nevertheless, he made him carry out the order. It was a massacre, performed at the public school with the help of a druggist, who took notes, and a first-year medical student who was here on vacation. They had only a few instruments for minor surgery available and the rest were craftsmen’s tools. But despite the havoc wrought on the body, Father Amador’s report seemed in order and the investigator incorporated it in the brief as a useful piece of evidence” (74-75).
In this passage, the lack of sympathy and care towards Santiago Nasar -- both his person and physical body -- is depicted. Blunt diction, seen in “no legal standing”, “massacre”, and “havoc wrought on the body”, illustrates the emotionless actions evident in the autopsy and legal case regarding Santiago. Despite the priest having not been legally approved to perform an autopsy, the mayor forced him to complete the medical procedure. The lack of care towards providing real, beneficial evidence towards the case (which would negatively impact the Vicario brothers’ stance) displays the influence of honor in Colombian society of that time period. Since the Vicario brothers had murdered Santiago Nasar in order to maintain the honor of their family, it appears that their motivation has influenced the rest of the town. The murder is seemingly justified, hence all of these shortcuts towards properly taking care of Santiago’s body and providing a solid legal case against the Vicario brothers are taken. The handling of Santiago Nasar’s body, as seen in the beginning of chapter four, where his body is left in the heat and exposed to the public for their own viewing, highlights the carelessness of the townspeople. No one had stopped this and no one had even realized that this storing of his body was completely inappropriate, not until the dogs were killed. Marquez writes, “Until then there hadn’t been any concern at all for the state of the body” (74). His body had been left in the center of the living room, open for everyone to see and left to simply decay due to a lack of refrigeration. The little information given towards finding proper care for Santiago Nasar’s body again emphasizes the lack of care towards taking proper care of him. This truly highlights how honor is a justifiable motivation in murder, as no one appears to show any sympathy towards the poor treatment of Nasar’s decaying body and the rushed autopsy.
I totally agree! In my blogged I also discussed how this situation showed how little people cared about what happened to Santiago. Almost no one even tried to prevent his death, the whole town knew it was going to happen. Also his body was already destroyed, I feel as if the autopsy was unnecessary. I think your point of having honor Justifying the murder is really interesting.
“Twelve days after the crime, the investigating magistrate came upon a town that was an open wound. In the squalid wooden office in the town hall, drinking pot coffee laced with cane liquor against the mirages of the heat, he had to ask for troop reinforcements to control the crowd that was pouring in to testify without having been summoned, everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” (98).
Although it seemed as if everyone was aware of the murder of Santiago Nasar prior to the crime actually occurring, no one genuinely stopped the Vicario brothers. The townspeople “pouring in to testify” illustrates the selfish nature of people -- it wasn’t until after the murder that people began saying something, likely to make themselves not feel as guilty. Marquez writes “everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama”, depicting the somewhat television-esque aspect of the crime -- how could everyone know of the murder, yet no one prevented it from occurring? Despite the description of the crowd as desiring to show off their own important role, no townsperson played a significant role in Nasar’s murder; had someone actually been an “important role”, the murder wouldn’t have occurred in the first place. Again, this emphasizes the egotistical trait found in all humans. Humans want to feel free of guilt and humans do not want the blame placed on themselves. Psychologically speaking, humans tend to blame other factors, such as the environment, rather than themselves for negative events. The townspeople hadn’t even been called in to testify, yet everyone had witnessed the sequence of events, so they went in anyways. A key aspect of the phrase “everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” is the usage of egotistical diction, seen in the combination of “eager” and “show off”. In regards to a crime, it would be strange for witnesses wanting to “show off” and act “eagerly” about testify -- typically, it should actually be the opposite. The townspeople’s strange actions in the aftermath of Santiago Nasar’s murder demonstrates the selfishness of humans and their desire to free the blame from themselves.
I agree with your analysis. I think the authors commentary on society and human nature is very blatant. I wonder if the authors believes that these fatal flaws can be reversed or will always be present within the human race. The way that the town reacted to his death is very concerning and disturbing. Their inability to see their own action or the incapacity to accept what they have contributed to is astonishing, but not rare. I like how you interpreted this scene as something similar to a tv show, which I did not consider before.
Since my last blog post was about chapters 4 and 5 (I misread the announcement), I figured this one might as well be too.
There is an astonishing lack of action taken in this book towards stopping the murder of Santiago Nasar. From our near-omniscient perspective, it is quite easy to judge the people for not doing anything, especially seeing as the book starts out: “there was never a death more foretold.” However, I want to try to break it down into a more personal perspective and see if the townsfolk are really so oblivious.
As we all know, the Twins eventually end up telling everyone they see that they’re going to kill Nasar. And, as we know, everyone blows it off; and for perfectly acceptable reasons. The Vicario brothers, especially considering the Wedding the night before, should be drunk off their wagon. Drunk people have a habit of saying simply whatever comes to mind, and so this is dismissed as drunkards banter. Additionally, the Vicario brothers and Nasar are friends, so the twins actually wanting to kill Nasar doesn’t make sense.
The only person who acts on this is Clotilde. This is because she is able to observe them for long periods of time, long enough to notice that no matter how much alcohol they drink, they aren’t getting drunk. They appear perfectly collected and with childlike sincerity about their plan. Freaked out and worried about Nasar’s life, Clotilde tells everyone she sees to tell Nasar. And nobody listens to her. Again, from an outside perspective, this seems crazy; how is no one doing anything about this? However, looking at the reasoning before, combined with the fact that most everyone is exhausted or hungover or both (from the party), they’re in their own little worlds. Plus, the Bishop is coming that day; it’s an important event (or it’s supposed to be) and people have to get ready.
Now we get to the real gritty part. Right before the murder occurs, “The people who were coming back from the docks, alerted by shouts, began to take up positions around the square to wittness the crime” (86%). This is pretty damning of the townsfolk. People are literally standing around and WAITING for a murder to take place before their eyes. How could you NOT do something? Well, first of all, mob mentality is a real thing, as is peer pressure; but most importantly is diffusion of responsibility. Like we touched on in class, it’s the idea that “oh, someone else will do something about it.” And think about it, how many times have you walked past a homeless person begging for food, or seen a piece of garbage on the ground and not pick it up, or not point out when a teacher makes a mistake because you were sure that someone else is going to do something? Same idea, just with a far more visible and obvious consequence. Imagine standing in a crowd of 100 people, watching someone verbally attacking someone else. You know you should do something, but it’s weird and uncomfortable and puts you out in the public, so you don’t want to do it. Surely one of them has to do something, right?
Anyway, this is really long winded, but my main point is that it’s easy to judge the people in this book, and it’s easy to say that of course you’d have done something. But honestly, looking at the facts: would you really?
(PS- I’m not saying you need to feed every homeless person you see, I’m just using it as an example)
I think you made a really interesting point and I totally agree. It is easy for everyone to say that they would have stopped it and speaking from personal experience (not a murder) but in previous events when I have been told to do something or act one way and literally no one else is doing it, I usually stop and do what people around me are doing. People are afraid to do something different because of the way people will judge them afterwards. Clotilde clearly attempted to get the word spread around but no one did it. I wonder if any of the townspeople were afraid that the Vicario brothers would hurt them if they actually got the murder prevented
Chapter four is filled with a vivid description of Santiago Nasar's rotting body and the Vicario brothers time in jail. The gruesome description of his body and its decay as people observe Santiago elicits the recurrence of similar actions that lead to his death by the people around him. The lack of action taken by his community to prevent his death is presented as a societal flaw, but to further the crime no one establishes responsibility. The morbid imagery describing his body and the dismantling of it provides a clinical perspective of society representing the selfishness and barbarity of his community. The motif of honor as an incentive is brought up again with Pura Vicario and her rejected daughter. Marquez writes, “Pura Vicario wrapped the face of the rejected daughter in a cloth so that no one would see the bruises, and she dressed her in bright red so nobody might think she was mourning her secret lover” (82). This line had a large impact on the mood of the chapter because of the victimizing diction. This also establishes the idea that honor is more important than anything else. Angela wearing red symbolizes a lack of respect toward Santiago and his death, as black is the universal color for mourning. Also her mother tries to cover the bruises that she has caused presenting the idea once again that honor is more important than anything else. Her own mother inflicted her physical harm and she shows no remorse just as the Vicario brothers did because it was in the result of maintaining honor. It is stated that she is still in the possession of her honor and the Vicario brothers proved their status as men. The main sympathy of the town was for Bayardo San Roman who had lost his wife and the life he had planned. For the town it was easy to forget the horrific death that Santiago faced but not the misfortunes of Bayardo.
Chapter five concludes the book with a scene from the perspective of the Vicario brothers when they killed Santiago brutally at his own mothers door. Animal diction used in this section describes Santiago being brutally slaughtered with no mercy as a pig would be. Another instance of animal diction is, “Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out a moan of a calf, and tried to turn his back to them” (118). This dehumanizes Santiago giving him little respect. This held true for everyone else in the town who only became involved in the murder for selfish reasons paying little respect to Santiago, especially when it is stated that he was going to die soon anyway for health reasons that may or may not be true. The passage oddly sympathizes with the brothers more so than Santiago. The way the event is presented allows the brothers to avoid being blamed because they were doing it to defend their family's honor. Their actions were looked at from a perspective that made it seem like a task that needed to be done and it was not a crime. Magical realism appears when the Pedro Vicario states that he had stabbed him three times and there wasn't a drop of blood and when everybody in the town hear Santiago's cry of pain. Santiago Nasar not bleeding from the first couple stabs supports the previous mention that his fate was set. In this chapter there are many instances where people describe him as having characteristics of someone that is dead before his actual death occurs. This supports the idea that his fate was inevitable. It was interesting that the whole town could hear Santiago's cry of pain while the Vicario brothers couldn't hear the screams from the people of the town. This places the blame solely on the people of the town who took no action to save Santiago. The Vicario brothers were blinded by their own supposedly justified motive while the rest of the people had nothing to hide behind. The passage ends with, “Nasar was still for an instant, leaning against the door, until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, and he fell on his knees” (119). The last line of the passage juxtaposes the brutal murder of Santiago when he takes his last breath. This line backs the idea that there is always peace right before death, even in his case where he is looking at his intestines in the sunlight.
The animal diction in this chapter reminded me of something mentioned in the earlier chapters. In chapter 3 on page 53, the twins declare that they’re going to kill Santiago Nasar. The paragraph after that is interesting in relation to your post because it talks about how butchers typically wouldn’t be able to stomach killing a human being because of things like how they don’t look into the eyes of steers that they sacrifice and how they aren’t able to kill animals that they have known or love and also how they can’t eat the meat of animals that they kill themselves. It then goes on to say how the Vicario brothers slaughtered the animals that they kept and even had names for. This relates to what you were saying about how the animal diction makes Santiago seem like a weak animal.
In chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we see a little bit more about the relationship between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. This allows the reader to get a more in depth understanding of the gender roles and sexism that was present in that time and place. It was interesting for me to see the extent of the sexism in this chapter by how much the people of the city pitied and admired Bayardo even though it’s more logical to feel empathetic towards Angela. Back in chapter 2, we discover that Angela had premarital sex and was therefore dishonored and given back to her mother by Bayardo because she was impure. Upon being returned to her mother she was beaten and shunned, yet Bayardo is still seen as the victim by the community. “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman” (83). The overall sympathy for Bayardo and the disdain for Angela can be traced back to the machismo and marianismo roles of the time. Even though Bayardo was a man that no one knew very well, and Angela was a woman who had lived in the town, the town still turned against Angela when the news of her ‘scandal’ broke out. This can be seen as an effect of the marianismo ideals that every woman seemed to need to fit into. For women, the ideal was to be as similar to the Virgin Mary as possible. This meant saintlike, submissive, as well as a virgin. Angela goes against all of this by not being a virgin at marriage as well as lying about her non virginity to her husband for months. For a man, the machismo role is very different. Being seen as a sexual playboy was an more of an honorable thing to be. These dynamics contributed to the rampant sexism that plagued that town and aided in the unfairness of the treatment of the once married pair.
I completely agree with your analysis of the roles of Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Román; my blog post had the same subject as yours! I too noticed how machismo and marianismo played into how the town treated Bayardo and Angela. I thought it was really interesting how the whole town thought it was okay for the twins to kill Santiago so their family honor could be restored. I do not think they want to, but it is necessary to prove their masculinity because of the importance of machismo at the time of this novel. It really bothered me that Bayardo was seen as the victim even though Angela is heavily affected by the whole “scandal.” It was also really annoying knowing that if Bayardo did what Angela did, no one would have said anything and there would be no problem or “scandal” at all. I agree with how you related the concepts and expectations of machismo and marianismo with Bayardo and Angela.
I always find the last lines of books to be especially interesting, as do many people. In terms of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the last line doesn’t exactly seems like a last line. This can be due to the warped time line that adds to the magical realistic aspect of the novel. “He stumbled on the last step, but he got up at once. ‘He even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts,’ my Aunt Wene told me. Then he went into his house through the back door that had been open since six and fell on his face in the kitchen” (120). The book began with the the morning that Santiago Nasar was supposed to die and ends with the scene of Santiago’s death. If you look at those two scenes then the book almost seems like it would be in order, yet everything within the book is all out of order. This could possible be a metaphor for the crime itself. When looking at the murder of Santiago Nasar, there’s the solid facts that Angela Vicario told her brothers that Santiago was the one that took her virginity before marriage and her brothers vowing to kill him for honor, and the way that Santiago Nasar died, that was revealed with the autopsy, yet everything in between that time is blurry and muddled because the entire time seems to not remember. All of the townspeople have different accounts from the weather to the actual events and since it was 27 years ago, nothing is exactly certain. The formatting of the book is similar to the plot and tone in this way which leads to a very interesting novel.
I also thought that the last line did not really seem like the last line since it just described how Santiago died falling on his face. In fact, I thought the book was unsatisfying because the readers never find out if Santiago was innocent or not. Aside from that, I agree with your analysis of the plot and formatting. For me, I found the title of this novel to be really ironic. The title begins with “Chronicle,” which is usually something factual that is recounted in chronological order. However, this novel is definitely not in chronological order as it skips around everywhere. In addition, it is definitely not factual. Although the main situation is plausible and realistic, there are aspects of magical realism embedded into the novel that make it a work of fiction. The title ends with “Foretold.” This has the connotation that nothing could be done to prevent the death that was foretold. For me, I think this is inaccurate because there were many things that could have been done to avoid Santiago’s death.
In Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator discusses the days after Santiago is murdered. What I found really interesting was how Angela, Pablo, Pedro, and Bayardo were treated after the death of Santiago. The concept of machismo is present throughout the novel and often acts as somewhat of a moral compass for the town. Machismo promotes male dominance and the idea of a man being strong, aggressive, and a protector of his family. As a protector of the family, a man would also be responsible for maintaining the family’s honor. Pablo and Pedro Vicario killed Santiago because Angela accused him of taking her virginity, which ruined her family’s honor. Even though they killed someone, the Vicario brothers ultimately did not feel they did not something wrong since it was necessary in order to restore their family’s honor. It is obvious that others felt this way too since the brothers did not go to jail and were released after three years of waiting for their trial. “When they were absolved, they remained in Riohacha…” (Márquez, 83). This shows the importance of machismo in Colombian society at the time because even though they killed someone, they were let off the hook because it was necessary in order to restore honor and prove their masculinity. As for Bayardo, he became the victim of the whole situation. This shows the double standard that Colombian society held for men and women. Men were allowed and even encouraged at times to sleep around with different women. For women, they were forbidden to sleep with anyone before marriage and if they wanted to keep their status of being “pure.” I think that Angela faced the most consequences out of everyone involved, except for Santiago. She is beaten by her mom and the narrator states that her mom “had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life…” (Márquez, 89). In addition, she lost Bayardo, whom she obsesses over after he leaves. “She only had to close her eyes to see him, she heard him breathing into the sea…” (Márquez, 92).
I agree with your concept that machismo is often what guides the moral code in the society that Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” is set in. I thought it was interesting how the marianismo of Angela was also used to juxtapose the difference in gender expectations. Gabriel Garcia Marquez was able to use this extreme machismo to create a statement about the law and society’s gender expectations. Even today, men and women are both bound to certain stereotypes and “desired” traits. Crimes with motives of honor and family name may also fall into a grey area when repercussions are discussed.
In Chapter Five, the narrator discusses the effects of Santiago’s death on the townspeople. Almost everyone in the town knew about the danger Santiago was in and they were all eager to find out how their combined stories led to the murder of Santiago. The narrator writes, “The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible…” (Márquez, 96). For me, I found that all the different stories from the townspeople proved the incompetence of the town as a whole. For example, Cristo Bedoya, who tries to stop the Vicario brothers’ plan, informs the mayor of the situation. Instead of acting immediately, the mayor: “…went into the social club to check on a date for dominoes that night, and when he came out again the crime had already been committed,” (Márquez, 109).
The magistrate investigates the town and what bothers him the most is the lack of evidence against Santiago as the man who took Angela’s virginity. I thought it was interesting that the focus of the magistrate was whether or not Santiago was innocent, but the focus of the town was all the “coincidences” that eventually led to the death of Santiago. While some are saddened by his death, ultimately, the townspeople are only concerned about themselves. For example, the narrator states that those feeling guilty for not acting more convinced themselves the whole thing was a matter of honor, so they did not have any right to interfere. I think that Santiago’s death was avoidable and that the townspeople should acknowledge that they could have prevented it instead of dismissing the whole situation as a “matter of honor.”
In the fourth chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Santiago Nasar’s autopsy is retold in all of its macabre and gruesome glory. Without proper storage and post-mortem care of the corpse, the townspeople and towns-dogs flock over to gawk at his ruined body. By the end of the autopsy, Santiago Nasar’s body is wrecked and haphazardly put back together for its burial. “They gave us back a completely different body. Half of the cranium had been destroyed by the trepanation, and the lady-filler face that death had preserved ended up having lost its identity. Furthermore, the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail. The last onlookers ranged about the schoolhouse windows lost their curiosity, the helper fainted, and Colonel Lazaro Aponte, who had seen and caused so many repressive massacres, became a vegetarian as well as a spiritualist. The empty shell, stuffed with rags and quicklime and sewed up crudely with coarse twine and baling needles, was on the point of falling apart when we put it into the new coffin with its silk quilt lining.” (Marquez 76-77)
In this passage, Santiago Nasar’s dead body has lost his identity after the end of the cruel autopsy by Father Amador, and is hastily thrown into its coffin. Something that I found interesting was the juxtaposition of the body and the silk-lined and expensive coffin, which was earlier described as a “rich-man’s coffin.” Does this relate to machismo and honor? Despite Santiago Nasar’s supposed affair with Angela Vicario, he still maintains an honorable and manly figure, which is displayed and honored by his luxurious coffin.
In the final chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the murder of Santiago Nasar is told in full detail. The ending of the story comes full compass to the first sentence of the first page, where his death is first stated. In this chapter, the narrator recounts his murder in vivid imagery, as well as the adverse effects that his death had onto other bystanders such as Hortensia Baute and Flora Miguel.
However, a passage that I found was most interesting about this chapter regarded the exact moment Pedro and Pablo Vicario began their vicious murder. “The knife went through the palm of his right hand and then sank into his side up to the hilt. Everybody heard his cry of pain. ‘Oh, mother of mine!’ Pedro Vicario pulled out his knife with his slaughter’s iron wrist and dealt him a second thrust almost in the same place. ‘The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean,’ Pedro Vicario declared to the investigator. ‘I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.’” (Marquez 117-118).
In this passage, Gabriel Garcia Marquez suggests the idea that Santiago Nasar may have been innocent this entire time and undeserving of any crime or punishment that had been inflicted onto him. Pedro Vicario’s declaration of the knife pulling out cleanly represents Santiago Nasar’s purity and innocence; he had not committed the crime he was accused for so he did not bleed for it. The cleanliness of the blade may also symbolize Santiago Nasar’s sense of holiness and/or goodness. Numerous times throughout the story, church-related and biblical references are made depicting Nasar. He often wears white, resembling purity, and has been favored by the bishop from a young age. Even in the chapter before, his bloodied and torn body is compared to the crucifixion of Jesus.
I'm Trisha Nelson, from the USA. I contracted HIV 4 years ago, I was told by my doctor that there's no possible cure for HIV/AIDS. I started taking my ARV's, My CD4 was 77 and the viral load was 112,450. I did research on a herbal remedy and I saw Dr. James Herbal mixed medicine, also I saw a lot of testimonials about him on how he uses His strong herbal mix medicine to cure HIV/AIDS and other illnesses. I contacted him and told him my problems, He told me not to be worried anymore that I will benefit and get cured of his herbal medicine for HIV/Aids. I never doubted Him because I believed I will be cured as nature has the power to cure all kinds of sickness when herbal medicine is being used in the right proportion. He prepared his herbal drink and sent it to me, and I took it for 3 weeks morning and evening in a quantity he told me, after that, I went for a check-up, and I was cured of HIV. His herbal mix medicine has NO SIDE EFFECT AND EASY TO DRINK, there's no special diet when taking Dr. James herbal mix medicine. He told me he got cures for diseases like Alzheimer's disease, Cancer, Bipolar disorder, Herpes, Hepatitis, Schizophrenia, Fibromyalgia. Dupuytren's disease, Neoplastic, Diabetes, Celiac disease, Cerebral Amyloid Antipathy, HPV, Weak Erection, Wart Remover. Ataxia, Arthritis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Adrenocortical carcinoma. Asthma, Allergic, Wart Remover, Melanoma, Parkinson, pectoral dermatitis, thyroid, HPV, ALS, KIDNEY DISEASES, SHINGLES. Pile, You can reach him on his Email address [GREATCUREMAN@GMAIL.COM] INFO @ DRJAMESHERBALMIX@GMAIL.COM
While rereading the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death foretold I initially realized the Maxim relating to weather and rain. The lack of chronological order provides a unique perspective and layout allowing the events to be relayed before Santiago's death occurred even though the reader is aware of his death by the first line of the book. The imagery used describing the day of his death is very gloomy, rainy, and dark. Even his dream is described to include a light rain where gentle diction is used to create a dreamy mood. This juxtaposes the initial dark mood. I found it interesting the content in this sentence, “..and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit”(Marquez 3). This was surprising because superstitious people believe that a bird pooping on you is good luck. From the beginning of the book it can be understood that superstition plays a role in this book because of the dreams that are described in detail. In this context the bird poop seems negative which contrasts superstitious values. I also noticed the specificity of the time that everything occurred. This gives a direct chronological order of everything, even though this seems impossible to relay the time so specifically for something that happened 27 years ago. This raises some suspicion about the accuracy of the description of the past. To relates this to Kitty Genovese case everyone who was a witness to the crime told stories that didn't line up with the facts. This is due to both denial, deference of responsibility, time, and the differing of perspectives. It is strange that the time was so specific because of this. Returning to the importance of the weather the day of his death it was explained that the weather was dark, but Santiago had said it was a very beautiful day. The repetitive nature of descriptions that do not align logically causes a feeling of impending doom.
ReplyDeleteGood job for blogging at a reasonable time, Brooke! :) Plus, I like your comment about the maxim.
ReplyDeleteWhile rereading Chapter One, I noticed that the style of this book is very straightforward. For example, the book begins with: “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty…” (Marquez, 3). It is no mystery that Santiago is going to die. However, the mystery is why an entire town, filled with people who knew about the plans to kill him, was not able to prevent his death. I think this is why Marquez starts the book out with the morning of his death. Readers already know that Santiago dies, so they can focus on how and why.
ReplyDeleteI think I found one example of magical realism near the beginning of the chapter. It describes an incident that occurred when a pistol went off by accident. Marquez writes, “It was a wise custom established by his father ever since one morning when a servant girl had shaken the case to get the pillow out and the pistol went off as it hit the floor and the bullet wrecked the cupboard in the room, went through the living room wall, passed through the dining room of the house next door with the thunder of war, and turned a life-size saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust,” (Marquez, 6). The situation that is described seems impossible since one bullet is unlikely to get through a wall and kill someone in a separate edifice. This somewhat impossible situation is then put into the “real-world,” which is what makes it magical realism. Why do you think Marquez uses magical realism in this book? For me, I think he does it to compare impossible situations to the most outrageous one of all, which is the killing of Santiago.
I agree that Marquez uses magical realism to compare impossible solutions to the killing of Santiago. However, I think that he doesn't believe the act of killing Santiago is necessarily outrageous, but rather the events surrounding it. By events, I'm referring to the fact that no one had actually informed Santiago, despite the entire town knowing. In fact, there wasn't much terror surrounding this event. He may also be questioning society as a whole; is society really ignorant enough to not care to stop a potential murder?
DeleteOn another note, does this specific example of magical realism add anything of worthy in the story? In my opinion, it may help create a harsher tone and the motif of death, but is there more significance to this event?
Jeremy-
ReplyDeleteChronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a very interesting book. The title itself is quite misleading, as the reader would expect to be reading a story of events in chronological order, however immediately, the “end” is already revealed. On the first page, it says, “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on” (1). This is the opening line of the book, and the end; that Santiago Nasar is killed, is already revealed. As the story progresses, all the details of his murder are revealed, as if the story was written in reverse. Santiago Nasar woke up feeling “completely spattered with bird shit” (1), which shows that he did not sleep well, however he wakes up early anyways in order to wait for the bishop. This is ironic because when the bishop arrived, “it was a fleeting illusion: the bishop began to make the sign of the cross in the air opposite the crowd on the pier, and he kept on doing it mechanically afterwards, without malice or inspiration, until the boat was lost from view...” (19). The bishop does not even get off his boat to greet the people of the town, which leaves Nasar feeling cheated. Back in the beginning of the story, “Santiago Nasar put on a shirt and pants of white linen, both items unstarched...” (3). Santiago Nasar wears a formal, white outfit, which seems to seal his fate of being murdered, as white is easy to stain with blood.
Immediately, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with a tremendous amount of visual imagery and ominous diction. The narrator of the story describes the events preceding Santiago Nasar’s murder, noting how the crime was obviously going to happen, yet no one in the town had noticed or said anything. The narrator states that Santiago dreamed, “he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt completely spattered with bird shit” (1). From the very start of the novel, magic realism is introduced, as the narrator, who seems to be accustomed to the culture of Santiago’s town, notes that all of these unfavorable events foreshadowed Santiago’s brutal end. The idea that bad luck comes into play in one’s murder reflects the magic realism aspect of the novel, as there is a lack of scientific evidence that the idea is true, and it is often seen as more of a cultural idea to believe in. The “gentle drizzle” described in Santiago’s dream encapsulates ominous diction, as in literature, rain is never just rain; the rain foreshadows the sadness that will soon engulf the town. Also, when the narrator describes how Santiago awakens covered in bird feces, the usage of detailed visual imagery evokes a feeling of disgust and unluckiness, again foreshadowing the untimely death of Santiago Nasar. While his death is already blatantly said in the first sentence of the novel, the employment of visual imagery hints towards specific details about Santiago’s murder that have yet to be revealed.
ReplyDeleteDoes the bad luck experienced by Santiago Nasar in the hours prior to his death reflect the magical realism aspect of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” to you?
In the “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the numerous occurrences of ironic events pertains towards the motif of magical realism throughout the story. The first event was related to the dream. As Márquez describes Santiago’s dreams of the timber trees or of the tinfoil airplane, he indicates that Plácida Linero “hadn’t noticed any ominous augury in those two dreams,” (1) despite her reputation for accurately interpreting dreams. Santiago’s mother had completely missed the concept of an omen within the dreams, which is situationally ironic in the sense that she always predicted dreams correctly, except for these particular dreams before Santiago’s murder. In fact, she continued to elaborate about the dream by saying, “Any dream about birds means good health.” (4). Obviously, Santiago experienced the opposite of good health after this dream had occurred. Through the event of the dream, there were several instances where situational irony was present. These events were ironic mainly due to the fact that Plácida had only predicted these particular events wrongly. Given her reputation, the probability of a wrong prediction is so low, that it seems that these events are unrealistic, therefore contributing to the motif of magical realism.
ReplyDeleteMany of Santiago’s decisions within the chapter was due to the special occasion of the bishop’s arrival. For example, Santiago wore a shirt and pants of white linen during the day of his murder because “it was his attire for special occasions.” (3) Similarly, Santiago chose to receive the bishop through the front door because it was a door opened only for special occasions. Both of these examples hold irony within them because Santiago had made decisions according to the special occasion of the bishop’s arrival, yet it was on the day of his murder. The clothes that he wore were meant for special occasions, yet he died wearing those clothes. The front and rear doors continued to support ironic events. Divina Flor had chosen to leave the rear door unbarred for Santiago, “in case of emergency.” Even a note was placed under the door to inform Santiago of his murder. (15). However, Santiago’s death had occurred in the front door- the door that was barred. It is ironic that all of these situations had naturally fit together so well to prevent Santiago from learning about his murder. The situational irony, again, demonstrates the irregularity of these events/decisions, supporting the argument that these events were not entirely realistic.
Many parts of the detailed depiction of the events on that day rely on other people's memory. Is it possible that Márquez is associating magical realism with the examples of events shown above to ultimately question the other people's memories? Psychologically, one's memory can easily be unconsciously manipulated by someone else's influence. Perhaps he is only questioning the reliability of one's memories and not necessarily the person themselves?
Throughout the first chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Chronicles of a Death Foretold there is prevalent tree imagery. The novel begins with the quote, “She had a well-earned reputation as an accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams, provided they told her before eating, but she hadn’t noticed any ominous augury in those two dreams of her son’s, or in the other dreams of trees he’d described to her on the mornings preceding his death.” (Marquez, 2). Specifically in this passage, the “dreams of trees” act as symbols alluding to the title. Additionally, this passage reflects the time period and culture of the society creating the setting of the story. Typically, professions such as dream interpreters or palm readers are viewed as scams and/or insignificant. The well-respected reputation she held as an interpreter of dreams characterize the society as less analytical and scientific and instead as one with more importance tied to faith and emotion.
ReplyDeleteThis passage in the first chapter also displays irony. Despite being an “accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams,” Santiago Nasar’s mother was unable to analyze her son’s dreams and interpret his foreboding death. Despite their repeated occurrence and significance, the trees were ignored by her.
Another example of tree imagery in the first chapter was evident on page 11: “... he constructed a wooden balcony that overlooked the almond trees on the square, where Plácida Linero would sit on March afternoons to console herself for her solitude.” (Marquez, 10-11). In this passage, the almond trees represent significance to Linero as her grieving place. This is ironic both due to the fact that she disregarded the almond trees in Nasar’s dream of the tinfoil airplane and that almond trees typically represent prosperity and happiness. Nasar’s tinfoil airplane dream may also foreshadow a disaster waiting to occur. Though pristine and dainty, “flying though the almond trees without bumping anything”, there is a chance that it could collide into a tree at any moment and being tinfoil, could crumple and be destroyed easily. The ignorance and simplicity of the tinfoil airplane mirrors Santiago’s life.
When reading Chronicle of a Death Foretold, one of the first things that I noticed was the repetition of the word dream in the first paragraph. In the first paragraph some variation of the word dream occurs seven times. The dreams in the novel play an important role especially at the beginning of the book. It’s obvious that the interpretations of dreams in the story is a very important part of the lives of Santiago and his mother. The fact that she misinterpreted his dream so easily can add to the guilt of all the separate characters over Santiago’s death. Another thing that I noticed that was interesting to me was the weather. The maxim “it’s never just rain” implies that the seasons and weather in a book are usually very important to the story but in chronicle of a death foretold, no one is exactly sure what the weather was like on the fateful day.
ReplyDelete“...he remarked to all of them in a casual way that it was a very beautiful day. No one was certain if he was referring to the state of the weather. Many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves, as was to be expected in a fine February of that period. But most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky and the thick smell of still waters, and that at the moment of the misfortune a thin drizzle was falling like the one Santiago Nasar had seen in his dream grove.” (4).
This could possibly be an allusion to the idea that the murder of Santiago Nasar could be seen from many different perspectives and the answer to the question of his guilt would vary depending on who you asked. This is later shown in all the accounts of the day that Marquez goes through in the first chapter.
- Komal Raman
Jeremy-
DeleteI agree with your analysis of the first chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold. When I reread the chapter, I did not notice the maxim "it's never just rain". However, after noticing many others point this out I do see it. In most stories, seasons and weather are always more significant than one would expect, and this story, as you say, is most likely no different.
Jeremy-
ReplyDeleteThe second chapter of Chronicle of a death foretold centers around Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. Bayardo had arrived in the town six months before his wedding. The reason he had arrived into the town was to find “someone to marry” (28), ending up deciding to marry Angela Vicario. When they first met, Angela was very annoyed at Bayardo because he “bought all the tickets in the raffle” (32) when she was raffling off her music box. Later, Angela found the music box as a gift to her from Bayardo, even though she had no idea how Bayardo knew it was her birthday. When Angela told her brothers to return the gift back to Bayardo, her brothers ended up becoming friends with Bayardo. Bayardo is characterized as a rich and charming man that everyone seems to like. Angela was the only person who did not like Bayardo, but her family loved the idea of Angela marrying a very rich man. They “imposed on her the obligation to marry a man whom she had barely seen” (38). By using the word “obligation”, Angela is shown as having little control over her own life. When Pedro Vicario asked Angela “who it was” (53), Angela looked for the answer “in the shadows” (53). This use of dark imagery matches the mood in this section of the story because this is where the reader discovers why Santiago Nasar is killed.
I agree with you that she really had no control over her life, especially because he was a rich man with a higher status than she has currently. I wonder what the significance of his arrival six months is before the wedding, and why was it in August?
DeleteIn Chapter 2 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez emphasizes the significance of honor and respect in men, families, and women. As Bayardo San Román arrives in “saddlebags decorated in silver,” the visual imagery conveys that Bayardo comes from a rich background. He also had the “waist of a novice bullfighter” and “golden eyes.” (27) Together, these features combine to illustrate a powerful, intriguing man. Due to his rich background, he presents himself in a way that yields respect from others and nothing less. This situation is the same for his father, General Petronio San Román. When General Petronio San Román arrived, “he wore the Medal of Valor on his lapel and carried a cane with the national shield carved on the pommel.” (37). Not only did he have a wealthy origin, but his status within the country compelled him to act as if he deserves honor/respect. Although he may certainly deserve it, his personality portrays a certain amount of arrogance as well. For both men, they believe that they should always be treated with honor/respect.
ReplyDeleteHonor and respect is also a core value to the family of Angela Vicario. When the family forced Angela to marry Bayardo, Márquez indicates that “the parents’ decisive argument was that a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny.” (38) Angela’s family essentially argues that a poor family must obey a rich family who can give Angela a proper future, despite the lack of love. This characterizes the entire family as one who values honor and respect more so than one person’s happiness.
Lastly, the main type of honor within this book is a woman’s honor. Before the wedding, when Bayardo arrives two hours late, Angela comments about the possibility of being left at the altar. The narrator follows by saying, “Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than for a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown.” (45) The hyperbole that being left at the altar is the most shameful event for a woman exaggerates the consequences of losing honor/respect. A woman could easily be disrespectfully ridiculed, if she were the type of woman to be left at the altar. Likewise, a woman would lose her honor if she married not as a virgin. The extremity of this event is demonstrated when Pura Vicario found out about Angela’s loss of virginity before marriage. Angela describes, “The only thing I can remember is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such rage that I thought she was going to kill me.” The vivid imagery of the beating exemplifies the physical and emotional pain attached to losing one’s virginity before marriage; that is the ultimate loss of honor.
Throughout the entire chapter, there are many instances where characters value respect/honor over everything else. Without respect/honor, they have no place in the world and would often be looked down by society.
I agree with your analysis! Honor serves as a key motivating factor towards the murder of Santiago Nasar. While that may be seen as unorthodox in modern-day society, honor definitely acts as a key component in major decisions in this novel. I feel like a woman’s honor revolves around the “feminine” traits that all wives were expected to possess during this time period, such as their virginity as you had mentioned. I presume that it was very difficult for women to protect and defend their own honor at this time, as shown when the Vicario brothers went out to kill Santiago Nasar. This emphasizes the dominant male role in society. It is also strange in that Angela’s act of losing her virginity impacted the family as a whole, sparking the need for the Vicario brothers to commit a crime. Angela’s actions affecting the whole family display the communal and tight-knit family aspect of this time period as well! In modern-day western cultures, I feel as if our society takes more of an individualist approach, hence honor does not matter when compared to one's social identity, thereby explaining why the extent to which the Vicario brothers go to protect their family's honor seems outlandish.
DeleteIn the second chapter the text revolves around Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario’s relationship, or the lack of one. The difference in cultural value regarding marriage is very evident in this chapter. Bayardo decides that he is going to marry Angela at first sight when he sees her across the square walking with her mother holding artificial flowers. The flowers symbolize the artificiality of their relationship. The flowers fulfill the stereotypical relationship, but because they are fake it represents his insincere motives. From outside it might look like it is a perfect relationship, but it is flawed. Bayardo came to town looking for marriage and because of ease and her appearance he chose Angela. He has no true feelings for her and she doesn't want to be with him, but she has no choice. Bayardo is able to marry her because of his display of money to her family. Angelas family comes to the conclusion without her that because he is from a richer family she will be better off marrying him because marriage can change social class. It is emphasized that Angela has no desire to marry him. This implies that she might try to say something to try to get herself out of her arranged marriage. No one in the town knew exactly who he was, so people began to fill the empty spaces. Marquez writes, “It came to be said that he wiped out villages and sown terror in Casanare as troop commander, that he had escaped from Devil’s island, that he had been seen in Pernambuco trying to make a living with a pair of trained bears, and that he had salvaged the remains of a Spanish galleon loaded with gold in the Windward Passage” (33). Although these are very exaggerated scenarios it still supports the idea that it is intrinsic for humans to fill in the unknown with past experience or probable scenarios. This happens when people aren't able to remember the entire story and unconsciously fill in the missing pieces.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis! Angela's relationship with Bayardo is incredibly shallow. Bayardo has the power to rule over Angela due to his money and looks, which forces Angela to confess about her nonexistent virginity in order to escape the situation. I believe that Márquez is ridiculing the importance of social status within society. The arrival of Bayardo has been consistently exaggerated throughout the entire chapter and he is thought of to be mysterious, even though he is just simply a rich man. The built-up tension pertaining to his mysterious characteristics doesn't ever reach a climax, rather is released. This unusual amount of tension may relate to the fact that Márquez is commenting on the realistic unimportance of wealthy men such as Bayardo.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBlog #2
ReplyDelete“Chronicle of a Death Foretold” represents a piece of literature that truly reflects the time period and culture in which Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote it in. The relationship that develops and falls between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario reflect the marriage dynamic -- which lacks love -- that seems to be common during that time period in Colombia. Angela Vicario herself, “confessed to me that he’d managed to impress her, but for reasons opposite those of love. ‘I detested conceited men, and I’d never seen one so stuck up” (29). Despite Angela’s hatred of egocentric men, Bayardo San Roman possessed beneficial qualities and traits that would ensure Angela’s future, as the narrator’s mother even claimed, “‘It also seems that he’s swimming in gold’” (27). In establishing the stereotypes of a man and a woman and the relationship that develops between the two, Marquez crafts this novel to fit into the time period in which it is written. While it may not be common in modern times and in western cultures for a woman to be “courted” by a man as Bayardo courts Angela, the relationship between the two is particularly specific to the early 20th century in a Latin American country. Thus, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” serves as social commentary, not just for the expected commentary on whether or not the town citizens should have stopped the murder, but rather on the relationship that had ignited the motivation behind the murder in the first place. Had it not been so important for a woman to be a virgin prior to marrying her husband during this time period, the Vicario twins would not have had a need to defend their family’s honor and kill Santiago Nasar.
I agree with your analysis of the marriage dynamic between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. Similarly as in many other pieces of literature such as Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew”, marriage is often affected or inflicted by factors besides love, which often comes secondary or maybe not even at all. Wealth, reputation, and honor are outstanding stakes in what was deemed a successful marriage. In “Chronicles of a Death Foretold” Garcia Marquez introduces the idea of honor and these societal predispositions of virginity and purity in marriage in order to set the scene of Santiago Nasar’s murder and reflect on the Colombian society at the time.
DeleteIn the second chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” materialism is prevalent in how the characters are influenced in making decisions or judgement. An example of this is displayed when Bayardo San Roman pursues a wife. Many times throughout descriptions of his character, materialistic views of his appearance, social status, and wealth is noted. He is even grudgingly accepted by fiancee Angela Vicario despite her general dislike of him, even comparing him to the devil. “Only a long time after the unfortunate wedding did she confess to me that she actually knew him when it was already too late to correct the October letter, and that his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear in her. ‘He reminded me of the devil,’ she told me, ‘but you yourself had told me that things like that shouldn’t be put into writing.’” (Marquez, 27-28). Additionally, Angela Vicario believed Bayardo to be self-obsessed and stuck-up. “She confessed to me that he’d managed to impress her, but for reasons opposite those of love. ‘I detested conceited men, and I’d never seen one so stuck-up,’ she told me, recalling that day.” (29-30)
ReplyDeleteMaterialism in “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” also reflects the time period and setting of the story. Similarly to William Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew,” male figures seen as more dominant were expected to provide for their wives and present riches and wealth in order to assert their power. Poor individuals with little to inherit and little to boast were always overshadowed by wealthier, better dressed men. This is the same case for Bayardo San Roman, who is described for his good clothes and good looks. Even his silver accessories reflect his social status. This is present in the first page of the chapter: “He arrived on the weekly boat with some saddlebags decorated with silver that matched the buckle of his belt and the rings on his boots. He was around thirty years old, but they were well-concealed, because he had the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter. He arrived wearing a short jacket and very tight trousers, both of natural calfskin, and kid gloves of the same color.” (25-26). San Roman’s golden eyes and skin tone, as well as his decorated silver saddlebags, rings, and belt reflect his wealth. Marquez uses this metallic, coin-like diction to describe his character as one in a position of power and masculinity.
In addition to boasting his wealth through appearance, Bayardo San Roman also uses it to purchase extravagant gifts for Angela Vicario. He purchases every raffle ticket in a drawing for a music box, which he later gives to impress her.
I think one of the most prominent issues of Chapter Two of Chronicle of a Death foretold was the value of honor and what it meant to the people of the story. Most of the conflicts aroused throughout Chapter Two brought up the honor of an individual. One clearest example of this was the whole ordeal involving Angela’s virginity. First, it was considered unhonorable for a man to mess up when hiding his snake in the bush, as seen in the quote on page 38, “…that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable in doing anything without the woman’s help.” The other questions of honor were for the woman. Simply having your virginity was a topic of honor. If you lost your virginity, you were often rejected by your family: “…the only thing that I can remember was is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such a rage that I thought she was going to kill me.” You were even rejected by your spouse, which is clearly seen, as Bayardo San Roman rejects her as a spouse, and outright gives her back to her parents. As we find out in other parts of the book, Nasar is eventually killed because he disrespected the honor of Angela by taking her virginity. This just shows how much honor was taken seriously and raises the question: does honor excuse the crimes that occur in the book?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this chapter was the very end. This book is structured sort of backwards, in that it starts with showing us that Santiago Nasar is going to die and then eventually dies and then the rest of the book goes through the murder. The suspense in this book mostly comes from figuring out what crime Santiago committed and if he is or isn’t truly guilty. The end of chapter two plays into this suspense because it tells us the reason he was murdered but it’s stated in such a way that it makes us question whether or not Santiago actually committed the crime. The little paragraph before the very last line that Angela Vicario says shows that she’s very flippant about picking his name. It talks about how, “She only took the time necessary to say the name. She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other,and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written.” (47). This shows that she most likely might be lying about who actually took her virginity, and that she just called out his name because that’s the first one she could pick out in the possible people that she knew.
ReplyDelete- Komal Raman
Then that makes us question, did Nasar deserve to die? Even if he had been the one to take her virginity, would that be a reason for such a brutal death. Disregarding the whole culture of machisimo, it may seem like it, at least to us. What do you think?
DeleteThe reoccurring concept of the unreliability and uncertainty of society’s perception towards certain events affirms the motif of magical realism. The symbolism of alcohol and the weather pertains to the inaccurate reports of the events that occurred on the day of the murder. Alcohol is constantly present throughout the chapter, first with the brothers, then with the narrator’s brother. When the brothers had declared that they were going to kill Santiago Nasar, many butchers indicated that they “thought it was drunkards’ baloney.” (60) The reputation associated with drunk people is that all actions and words should not be trusted if a person is drunk. The person’s actions could be so out of the usual norm that, in fact, it could appear magically realistic. Márquez continues to emphasize the uncertainty that alcohol brings when the narrator comments on his brother and says, “He’d drunk so much that his memories of that encounter were always quite confused…My brother doesn’t remember it.” (79) The effect of alcohol leads to unusual actions that are not necessarily realistic for the person, which, consequentially, appears magical. Alcohol symbolizes the overall extreme unreliability of people’s actions and accounts of the day of the murder, leading to the motif of magical realism.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, the varying accounts of weather also accentuates the unreliability of those accounts. In one account, Colonel Lázaro Aponte claimed, “I can remember with certainty that it was almost five o’clock and it was beginning to rain.” (64) On the other hand, Pablo Vicario observed that “it wasn’t raining.” Pedro followed and indicated that the weather was “just the opposite. There was a sea wind and you could still count the stars with your finger.” (71) Clearly, these two descriptions are opposites, while both sides stated their observations with certainty. The possible rain itself also commonly foreshadows a bad event. However, if the weather was “just the opposite,” it could also be the eye of the storm, when everything is calm. Nevertheless, no matter the interpretation of the weather itself, the weather also symbolizes the unreliability of society’s perception of the events on the day of the murder. This drastic difference between one description and the other is extremely unrealistic. Because the events are so unrealistic, they ultimately relate to the topic of magical realism.
I agree with you, it’s very interesting the way that all the people’s perspectives on the day changed so drastically. In a way, it’s strange but in a another way, it also makes more sense that they don’t really remember the minutia of the day since it was so long ago. If you ask any person randomly what the weather was like 27 years ago, I doubt that anyone would be able to remember what the weather was like specifically on that day. In another sense I get how the weather can be used as a symbol for the changing realities of the witnesses. I can also see how it can possibly also be a symbol for the changing opinions on whether or not Santiago Nasar was guilty of the “crime” he was being murdered for.
Delete- Komal Raman
I thought your interpretation of the weather was really interesting because I had not really considered it. To me, I did not really see the events as an example of magical realism, but I agree that the events do seem unrealistic. Do you think the alcohol has another purpose other than making the whole ordeal seem unreal? I thought Marquez was making some kind of social commentary on how unreliable the public may be in these kinds of situations. It is interesting how Marquez based this book off of a real life situation that occurred in the past since the whole thing does seem very unreal. I think the symbols are a bit unclear in this book, but I do not know if he does this on purpose. It could be because he wants his audience to focus more on how Santiago Nasar died and why.
DeleteOne of the things that was interesting to me about this chapter was that all the witnesses seemed to be more guilty than the actual brothers. In the beginning of the chapter they say, “‘We killed him openly,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor.’” This quote along with the paragraph following it that states how the Vicario brothers showed no remorse about the murder once they were in prison, shows how they fully believed that they were innocent and that they did nothing wrong. This chapter also repeatedly mentions how the Vicario brothers were drunk during the murder and this fact is brought up over and over by the witnesses using it as an excuse as to why they didn’t try and stop the murder. They used the fact that the brothers were drunk to say that they didn’t think they would actually commit the crime and that it was just drunkards fooling around. It’s strange that the bystanders had more remorse than the brothers. It’s not explicitly stated in the book that they have remorse over the crime but the fact that they try and use their inebriated state as an excuse as to why they didn’t interfere and this alludes to them having guilt over not doing anything to stop something that was explicitly going to happen. Since the excuse of the two brothers being drunk seems more of an excuse than an actual reason, it makes me wonder what the actual hidden reason is that no one decided to actively try and stop the murder from happening.
ReplyDelete- Komal Raman
Jeremy-
DeleteI agree that this chapter seemed to depict the witnesses as more guilty than the brothers. In the one morning when the brothers went to the butcher shop, it said that 22 people heard about the murder, but did nothing. Not only are the witnesses shown as guilty, but the book also makes the brothers seem not guilty because they continue to say that they were defending their sister's honor.
Jeremy-
ReplyDelete“There had never been a death more foretold. After their sister revealed the name to them, the Vicario twins went to the bin in the pigsty where they kept their sacrificial tools and picked out the two best knives: one for quartering, ten inches long by two and a half inches wide, and the other for trimming, seven inches long by one and a half inches wide. They wrapped them in a rag and went to sharpen them at the meat market, where only a few stalls had begun to open. There weren't very many customers that early, but twenty-two people declared they had heard everything said, and they all coincided in the impression that the only reason the brothers had said it was so that someone would come over to hear them. Faustino Santos, a butcher friend, saw them enter at three-twenty, when he had just opened up his innards table, and he couldn't understand why they were coming on a Monday and so early, and still in their dark wedding suits.” (Marquez 57-58). In this passage, the Vicario twins are bringing their knives to be sharpened. It is written that “there had never been a death more foretold”, as well as “twenty-two people declared they had heard everything”. This is interesting because so many people had heard about the brothers’ plan to murder Nasar, but do nothing about it. This brings up a question on whether being a bystander is guilty as well. It is interesting how the brothers wrapped their knives “in a rag and went to sharpen them at the meat market”. This is interesting, because they cover up their knives, as if they are trying to hide their plan. However, at this time, the whole town understands that they plan to murder Nasar. The use of butcher knives can symbolize as well as foreshadow Nasar’s gruesome death and getting killed like an animal. Dark imagery is used to describe the brothers’ “dark wedding suits”. Dark colors are often associated with evil or something bad. This can also help to foreshadow their evil action of murdering Nasar.
I do think it's interesting that they bothered to cover their blades at all, seeing as they were just telling everyone. After their first blades are taken, they get new knives and wrap them in newspaper, again attempting to cover them, when very clearly everyone knows what's happening.
DeleteI think the reason this was done was to show that the Vicario brothers were still very sane, sober and rational at this time. They very clearly believe that what they are doing is in the right, and they feel no remorse for it. They're covering their blades not because they're trying to hide their plan, but because only a crazy person would walk around with a knife out, and lets be honest, it'd be pretty dangerous. What happens if you slip?
Point being, the Vicario brothers are covering their knives, not because they're hiding their plan, but because no rational, calm person would walk around with a bare weapon.
I was incredible struck by the sentiments made by Clotilde when the twins showed up at her shop for the second time. It is at this point she becomes very aware that they are going to kill Nasar or at least do something violent. Seeing them, she was "frightened" because they looked like children, and "only children are capable of everything" (44% on kindle). Whether she means that children have potential & the ability to do anything they set their mind to, or that only children are foolish enough to try anything and everything they think of is up to the reader.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found really powerful about this is that it frames this killing in a creepy light. Thanks to books and movies like The Shining, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, and Children of the Corn, and games like Bioshock and Fran Bow, our society has an irrational fear of little children, especially if they're twins, especially-especially if they have knives. Comparing something so innocent to the site or cause of something horrifying and gruesome creates a startling juxtaposition. I mean, children with knives? In black clothes? Being brutally honest like children do ("I am going to kill Santiago Nasar")? It takes the malice and anger out of the actions of the Vicario brothers.
Why is this done? Good question. Personally, I'm not sure, but I really thought this was interesting.
There are three distinct characteristics of children that are apparent in the Vicario brothers: innocence, loyalty, and implausibility. The fact that none of the townspeople genuinely felt like the brothers had the actual capability to murder another human being elicited the somewhat innocent trait present in both of the brothers. They were not seen as awful human beings, instead, they were seen as righteous and harmless, just like children. Going along with this is the implausibility of the brothers. Again, none of the townspeople believed that the Vicario brothers would follow through with this threat against Santiago Nasar. Likewise, children are often not believed due to both their lack of experience and lack of knowledge. Finally, children are also seen as loyal, as they are often egocentric and have a more closed-minded view on the world and others’ perspectives. The murder itself is not what the Vicario brothers focused on. The brothers were determined to protect their family’s honor. In doing so, Pablo and Pedro did not think that they were doing any wrong by killing Santiago Nasar, rather, they were committing an act out of loyalty.
DeleteReligion plays an important role in the novel, “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”; after all, the first place the Vicario brothers head to directly after their crime is the church. They immediately surrendered to the priest, still covered in blood and sweating like pigs. One quote reads, “‘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 dialogue said by Pedro admitting that the brothers had killed Santiago, yet claiming their innocence directly after emphasizes the cultural norm in which honor was an extremely significant title to defend, as it is even considered to be above the law. When Father Amador relates the murder to religion, declaring “perhaps before God”, he contributes to the cultural norm in which the murder is considered to be okay because of the motivation behind it. Next, Pablo claims that the brothers are innocent before both God and men, insinuating that he believes that he and Pedro will not be be charged with murder nor will the be sent to jail. This belief reinforces the idea that murder when defending honor is justified (at least in this time period and culture). Also, because the brothers had immediately went to the church minutes after murdering Santiago, it highlights the importance of the church and religion in the lives of the Colombian townspeople. By heading to the church and confessing as soon as they could, the brothers must have wanted to feel “cleansed” from their brutal act and they may have even been seeking justification and support for their actions.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think defending honor is not as prominent of an issue nowadays (unless Colombia is still all about the murdering someone to protect their family’s honor)?
I definitely agree that religion plays an important role. In a sense, their religion almost justifies the murder, because the loss of honor without a consequence as great as a murder would be more of a sin than plain murder. The value of honor is a essentially a result of their culture, therefore their religion. A large majority of Colombia were Catholic at the time, signifying that many people shared the same views. However, religion is much more widespread nowadays, which allow people to contrast in ideas and values. I believe that the difference between everyone's cultures result in a difference of values, especially pertaining to honor. Though some may still believe that a murder is justifiable to the loss of honor, a greater amount of society would disagree nowadays. The disagreement would eventually lead to chaos, so this potential chaos restricts people from defending honor to the extremity of murder.
Delete“[Clotilde] was certain that the Vicario brothers were not as eager to carry out the sentence as to find someone who would do them the favor of stopping them.” (57)
ReplyDeleteIn the setting of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, we see the recurring importance of gender roles set by the society. It is evident with Angela and her independence as well as with in the Vicario brothers. The pressure of defending honor within the society and the masculinity involved with that concept is very high. The two brothers go around town proclaiming their plans to kill Santiago Nasar with the intention that someone would stop them. Murder contradicts the brother's strong Catholic religious base as well as with the majority of sane humans’ moral codes. Yet here we see that honor and upholding the family name conquers anything moral or religious, bringing us to a societal issue and a theme in the book of the contradiction between religion and family, pride, and honor. The fact that the Vicario brothers feel the need to brutally murder a man solely for the purpose to prove and uphold their masculinity shows us a lot about the society that this novel is based in. Marquez adds this in to prove an overall message to the reader about the problem within society and the unreasonable standards and demands of gender roles. Marquez has the confidence of the Vicario brothers and the openness of their crime as a mask of their insecurities and doubts within the societal rule, therefore giving a message to the reader on the gender based standards of society.
For the Chronicle of a Death Foretold group projects, my group and I were assigned to Chapter Three. We investigated how someone’s situation can influence or justify their actions. While reading the chapter, I found the motif of honor to be very interesting. Pablo and Pedro Vicario head out to kill Santiago as soon as their sister, Angela, accuses him of taking her virginity. It is Angela’s newlywed husband, Bayardo San Román, that finds out she is not a virgin and returns her to her mother’s household in the middle of the night. Although it never becomes clear whether Santiago is guilty of this act or not, it is obvious that Angela losing her virginity before marriage is a big deal. It is a big enough deal that her brothers headed out to kill the person that supposedly caused their sister to be disgraced. I found it really interesting that neither of the brothers think they did anything wrong. In fact, they do not seem to regret anything. Marquez writes:
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).
Here, the motive for the murder of Santiago becomes clearer. Honor is very important in this time period and society. I thought it was interesting how the concept of “family honor” justifies the murder of Santiago because he was accused of taking Angela’s virginity. Father Amador even justifies the brothers’ murder by inferring that they may be innocent before God.
I went through a very similar thought process as you did when it was revealed that the Vicario brothers were justified for killing Santiago. This is very strange and culturally different to the world we live in today. I also think it was interesting that the truth about if he died because of false information or if he had taken her virginity was never uncovered. This leaves a unsettling mood and also shows his commentary on the flaws of society.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of this passage in the third chapter and your ideas regarding the significance of honor in “Chronicle of a Death Foretold.” Within the society that this story is set in, the pressure of defending honor is very high, especially for men. Men are expected to act as the knights-in-shining-armor to defend the virtue and virginities of young women. Had Pedro and Pablo Vicario done nothing and ignored the rumors of Santiago Nasar stealing away Angela’s virginity, both brothers would likely have been dubbed as weak and dishonorable for failing to protect the family name and reputation. Despite murder contradicting moral and strong religious code, honor and sacredness of the family appear to outweigh both moral obstacles for the twins.
DeleteIn Chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez employs vivid visual imagery, dehumanizing diction, and characterization to illustrate the society’s lack of respect for one another, and in this case, Santiago Nasar. In effect, Márquez creates a critical tone, leaving readers questioning the brutality and selfishness of members of society. At the beginning of the chapter, the narrator notes that “the body had been exposed to public view in the center of the living room.” (84). Although the phrase doesn’t describe vivid visual imagery in itself, with the knowledge that Santiago was stabbed so many times that his entrails were falling out, the words depict a horrendous scene. It seems incredibly disrespectful to allow the body to lay there inside a home. Additionally, the body is in plain view for the public to scrutinize, almost as if it were in a museum. The least they could have done was to cover his body up with a blanket. The description of the autopsy was even more atrocious. The narrator details,
ReplyDelete“Half of the cranium had been destroyed by the trepanation, and the lady-killer face that death had preserved ended up having lost its identity. Furthermore, the priest had pulled out the sliced up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail.” (88)
Father Amador seemingly had no intent to preserve Santiago’s body. He had destroyed his head with trepanation, a surgical method involving drilling a hole into one’s head, rid his face of all identity, and disposed of the rest of his intestines. As noted before, although Santiago’s body was brutalized, his facial expression displayed his confidence and contentment with life. However, the only graceful remains of his body was stolen away from him during this autopsy. In addition, both vivid visual imagery and dehumanizing diction are incorporated when Father Amador tossed his intestines into the garbage pail. It appears that Father Amador had absolutely no respect for Santiago’s body. As uneasy the intestines may be to a person who does not specialize in the medical field, they must still have a sense of morality regarding the treatment of a murder victim. The lack of respect is emphasized when Father Amador comments, “he had only a few years of life left to him in any case.” (87). Father Amador’s statement is incredibly dehumanizing, making Santiago seem as if he wasn’t a human, rather an animal that doesn’t deserve much from life.
The rest of the town was also characterized as people who had no sympathy for Santiago Nasar. As the narrator indicated, “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Román.” (96). Even if Santiago did take away Angela Vicario’s honor, did he deserve to die in such a savage manner? Though honor is prevalent as an important value in all of the townspeople, they never truly considered Santiago’s side of the story, where he didn’t steal Angela Vicario’s honor. In fact, they didn’t have much respect for Santiago’s body either, despite his seemingly decent character when he was alive. Through the townspeople’s lack of respect for Santiago, Márquez generalizes this concept to pertain to society’s lack of respect for each other. The lack of respect also translates to the abundance of selfishness. It was selfish that people had failed to inform Santiago of his own death, and even more selfish for Father Amador to throw Santiago’s intestines into the garbage, simply because he couldn’t bare to deal with them. Márquez illustrates the brutality and apathy of society.
In Chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Márquez utilizes repetition to emphasize the extent to which the death was foretold. However, he brings up the question: is the death foretold because of the loss of honor, or is it foretold because of other people’s inability to prevent it? Throughout the chapter, the world “dead” is repeated several times, specifically describing the state of Santiago Nasar before he even died. In the first situation, Pedro Vicario says, “Don’t bother… No matter what, he’s as good as dead already,” (120) when replying to Indalecio Pardo after Clotilde Armenta persuaded Indalecio to warm Santiago. In this sense, Pedro most likely refers to how a man who takes away a person’s honor is a dead man, even if he isn’t physically dead yet. This simultaneously foreshadows Santiago’s death based on the twins’ determination to kill him. Later in the chapter, “dead” is repeated when Pedro Vicario argues, “Dead men can’t shoot.” (128) Similarly, the phrase illustrates the twins’ confidence in their killing of Santiago Nasar based on his previous actions regarding honor. Lastly, Margot described Santiago as, “he already had the face of a dead man.” (130) when Santiago had passed by her well before he died. In this case, although she may be referring to how Santiago is bound to die since he took away Angela Vicario’s honor, her statement also implies that because she thought he looked like a dead man, then there was no use in warning him. Ironically, if she had warned him, then he may not have died. Margot uses the importance of honor to justify Santiago’s death, but in reality, does her decision of not warning him essentially cause his death?
ReplyDeleteThe repetition of “dead” strongly establishes the extent to which the death was foretold. Clearly, it was foretold because a man who takes away a woman’s honor is destined to die. However, as all of the townspeople recognized this fact, did their actions, or lack thereof, essentially cause the murder? If all of them had attempted to warn Santiago of his death, wouldn’t the death become much less foretold? I wonder if Márquez is indicating that the death is foretold due to the loss of honor or the people’s incapability to warn Santiago of his death.
Throughout the chronicle, names have held importance and symbolism, with many being biblical allusions and
ReplyDeletereferences. After doing a bit of research, I thought I'd share some of the more potent ones with you guys.
-Santiago Nasar: Santiago translates to "saint," potentially used to indicate Nasar's innocence in the crime the Vicario brothers implicate him in. Nasar could potentially be a connection to Nazareth, a city in Israel where Jesus was born. Some draw meaning from this, that Jesus foretold his own death and this book starts with "there was never a death more foretold," but I leave you up to decide that one for yourself.
-Clotilde Armenta: Clotilde was the name of a saint, known for almsgiving and mercy. Saint Clotilde was vererated especially as guarding the lame, those suffering from ill-tempered husbands and (get this!) those who suffer VIOLENT DEATHS. Huh. See any connections? Clotilde in CODF seems to be the one of the only ones who tries to do anything to stop Nasar's death, further linking her with his death.
-Cristo Bedoya: First, if you are a little unfamiliar with your biblical knowledge, allow me to fill you in real quick. Jesus Christ, the son of God, suffered the pain and sin of every person in the world to save all of us. Cristo, which translates to Christ, is the ONLY person who actually acts and attempts to save Nasar. He runs all over town, searching for Nasar to tell him about the plot (which, if we want to analyse this further, could be linked with the parable in the bible about the lost sheep; if the shepard [the shepard is representative of Jesus] loses one of his sheep, he will leave the 99 sheep to go find the one and save it. Make of that what you will.). If anyone could be Nasar's savior, it's Cristo.
Pablo & Pedro Vicario: Pablo and Pedro are the Spanish variants of Paul and Peter. Peter was one of Christ's original 12 apostles, while Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (originally known as Saul). This is reflected in their roles in the story. It is Pedro who originally gives the brothers their mission, mirroring Peter being one of Christ's first followers. However, he later does not want to go through with the murder, potentially referencing that at Christ's trial before his crucifixion, Peter denied knowing Christ 3 times. This is when Pablo steps in, insisting that they go through with it. This matches Paul joining the Church later, who beforehand had been persecuting members of the Church.
There are way, WAY more meanings with the names, these were some of the cooler ones I found. Let me know if you have different interpretations or discover meanings with different names.
Jeremy-
DeleteYour analysis of the names used in this story was very interesting. I had not thought that the names used would have such significance. This makes me wonder if the author had written this on purpose, or if he just used random names?
I think it’s interesting that the names have such a significance in the book. I remember talking about Pablo and Pedro in class and how they were parallels to Peter and Paul from the bible, but the fact that Santiago’s name means saint is really interesting. Especially since we never really find out if he was truly the one to take Angela Vicario’s virginity or rather if she just pulled his name from the clouds in her mind and pinned the blame on him to save the real culprit. Another idea that would be interesting to look into would be the fact that Marquez used a few names that were the names of people in his own life that he knew personally and the impact that had on the story.
Delete- Komal Raman
Jeremy-
ReplyDeleteChapter four of Chronicles of a Death Foretold depicts the aftermath of Nasar’s death. The way he was murdered was so gruesome that his body ended up looking like food to the dogs, which were “aroused by the smell of death” (84). Nasar’s body was saved from the dogs, but ironically ended up being autopsied by the public, which “was a massacre” (86). The smell created by Nasar’s dead body continued to be a presence on everything. Even the Vicario brothers “could smell him in the jail cell where the mayor had locked them up” (90). The smell could be a symbol for guilt, as the brothers were unable to sleep and seemed to be poisoned while the smell remained. As the smell remained throughout the whole town, one could assume that this symbol for guilt meant that the whole town was guilty in some way, because although everyone knew of the Vicario brothers’ plan, no one stopped them. This could be an example of magical realism; the smell of Santiago Nasar lingering in the jail cell. Another example could be Bayardo San Roman not reading any of the letters sent by Angela. Although Bayardo never reads any of Angela’s letters, it seems that the gesture of sending letters was enough for Bayardo to return.
The smell of Santiago Nasar’s decaying body symbolizing guilt is a thought-provoking idea! I too noticed the guilt evident in all of the townspeople, but who can blame them? Each and every one of them had the ability to prevent the murder from occurring, but did anybody do anything genuinely helpful? Of course there are people like Clotilde Armenta who took their knives away, but everyone viewed the Vicario brothers’ threats as a joke. Regardless, even if the brothers appeared extremely serious towards following through with their threats, the overarching motivation of honor (maybe even disliking in Divina Flor’s case), led no one to stop the murder. Once the townspeople had seen the aftermath of the atrocious murder, the guilt is extremely apparent, especially through the omnipresent symbol of the heinous smell of Santiago’s body.
DeleteI think the smell of his body symbolizing guilt is really interesting! After reading your post the first thought that occurred to me was that in a way the smell was kind of punishing the whole town because they could be seen as guilty for not saying anything about the death. Like almost everyone knew that it was going to happen and it's interesting to think that the townspeople also felt guilty and not just the twins.
DeleteJeremy-
ReplyDeleteIn the final chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold, essentially the same story is told with different information. In this chapter, we learn about the many unlucky events that occur, which eventually lead to Santiago Nasar’s death. We also learn about how much of an impact Nasar’s death had on everyone because “for years we couldnt talk about anything else” (113). Divina Flor has a vision that she saw “Santiago Nasar come in through the door on the square and go up the open stairs to the bedrooms...He was wearing his white suit and carrying...a bouquet of roses” (138). This vision foreshadows Nasar entering the house carrying his guts. An example of magical realism in this chapter could be that that everyone except for Santiago Nasar knew about his death. Nasar was murdered as if he was an animal. Pig knives were used to cut him, and he was cut to the point where his guts fell out of his body. Although everyone in the town is to blame because of their knowledge of the brothers’ actions, it seems like the combination of all the bad coincidences and Divina Flor’s vision sealed Santiago Nasar’s fate, and his death could not be prevented in any way.
Blog #4
ReplyDeleteGabriel Marquez focuses in describing Santiago Nasar’s dead body during chapter four. The description is loathly detailed and is repeatedly displayed to the audience. The vivid imagery used to describe the body can be seen when Gabriel writes, “In the afternoon a syrup colored liquid begin to flow from the wounds, drawing flies, and a purple blotch appeared on the upper lip and spread out very slowly, like a shadow of a cloud on water, up to the hairline” (74). The reader experiences a nauseous sensation while reading through these unpleasant passages. The specific detail emphasizes how sickening this situation was, from the people who never bothered to warn Santiago, to those who encouraged double standards for women in society. If women weren't born to be married off, and be a virgin, the shame of Angela Vicario and her family wouldn't have existed. The foul diction and the distasteful imagery exaggerates Santiago's cruel death and the mistreatment to his corpse. The amateur autopsy indicates how little everyone cared for him. Another idea that was extremely prevalent in this chapter was how the smell of Santiago's dead body seemed to haunt the people in the town. The smell was first introduced when the narrator says, “ In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness” (73). The odor symbolizes the unfortunate event and the town realizes their mistakes, and are haunted by the lingering death.
Blog #5
Chapter five focuses on the impact of Santiago Nasar’s death on the society. This is ironic since the people in the town didn't even care for Santiago's death nor did they ever get involved. Gabriel Marquez writes, “Santiago Nasar’s fiancee, ran away out of spite”, “Aura Villeros... suffered a spasm of the bladder”, “Don Relogio de la Flor... didn't survive the shock” (97). These are reports of multiple people in the town, and how Santiago's death impacted their lives. The lack of action by these people and the rest of society haunted them. If only one person didn't assume that Santiago knew of his fate, and found him in time, then this crisis would have been avoided. The reader's experience guilt, sorrow, and confusion through the impact of Santiago's death. when people figured about the twins plot to kill Santiago, no one believed it was impotent or that the twins would have the courage to kill someone. However, later it was said, “ He (the investigative magistrate) had to ask for troop reinforcements to control the crowd that was pouring into testify without having been summoned, everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” (98). Suddenly everyone wants to be involved and wants to contribute their opinion to the authorities. When humans perceive a situation that is unimportant to their lives, they do not find the energy to look for other or they don't even bother. However, when something affects someone directly, suddenly they find time to place the utmost importance on it.
(responding to your Blog #4)
DeleteYou mention that the poorly done autopsy represents how little everyone cared about Nasar. I personally disagree; it is mentioned on more than one occasion that he was generally well liked; only Victoria Guzman seems to be the one that hates him. The autopsy (in my opinion) shows how much this incident changed this town forever. Some of the townsfolk are reported as having physical reactions to the gruesome murder; Hortensia Boute goes crazy with grief that the murder was somehow her fault, Don Regelio dies of shock, etc. It's mentioned that, for a while, the murder was all they could think about, dominating their daily lives. The town is even described as an open wound. When everything "heals" and life returns to normal, it's not the same. The autopsy absolutely butchers Nasar; he is borderline unrecognizeable after he's been cut open and had his guts pulled out and stitched back together again. In the same way, the town, after this horrible case, can never be the same again.
Blog #4
ReplyDelete“The priest had studied medicine and surgery at Salamanca, but had entered the seminary before he was graduated, and even the mayor knew that his autopsy would have no legal standing. Nevertheless, he made him carry out the order.
It was a massacre, performed at the public school with the help of a druggist, who took notes, and a first-year medical student who was here on vacation. They had only a few instruments for minor surgery available and the rest were craftsmen’s tools. But despite the havoc wrought on the body, Father Amador’s report seemed in order and the investigator incorporated it in the brief as a useful piece of evidence” (74-75).
In this passage, the lack of sympathy and care towards Santiago Nasar -- both his person and physical body -- is depicted. Blunt diction, seen in “no legal standing”, “massacre”, and “havoc wrought on the body”, illustrates the emotionless actions evident in the autopsy and legal case regarding Santiago. Despite the priest having not been legally approved to perform an autopsy, the mayor forced him to complete the medical procedure. The lack of care towards providing real, beneficial evidence towards the case (which would negatively impact the Vicario brothers’ stance) displays the influence of honor in Colombian society of that time period. Since the Vicario brothers had murdered Santiago Nasar in order to maintain the honor of their family, it appears that their motivation has influenced the rest of the town. The murder is seemingly justified, hence all of these shortcuts towards properly taking care of Santiago’s body and providing a solid legal case against the Vicario brothers are taken. The handling of Santiago Nasar’s body, as seen in the beginning of chapter four, where his body is left in the heat and exposed to the public for their own viewing, highlights the carelessness of the townspeople. No one had stopped this and no one had even realized that this storing of his body was completely inappropriate, not until the dogs were killed. Marquez writes, “Until then there hadn’t been any concern at all for the state of the body” (74). His body had been left in the center of the living room, open for everyone to see and left to simply decay due to a lack of refrigeration. The little information given towards finding proper care for Santiago Nasar’s body again emphasizes the lack of care towards taking proper care of him. This truly highlights how honor is a justifiable motivation in murder, as no one appears to show any sympathy towards the poor treatment of Nasar’s decaying body and the rushed autopsy.
I totally agree! In my blogged I also discussed how this situation showed how little people cared about what happened to Santiago. Almost no one even tried to prevent his death, the whole town knew it was going to happen. Also his body was already destroyed, I feel as if the autopsy was unnecessary. I think your point of having honor Justifying the murder is really interesting.
DeleteBlog #5
ReplyDelete“Twelve days after the crime, the investigating magistrate came upon a town that was an open wound. In the squalid wooden office in the town hall, drinking pot coffee laced with cane liquor against the mirages of the heat, he had to ask for troop reinforcements to control the crowd that was pouring in to testify without having been summoned, everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” (98).
Although it seemed as if everyone was aware of the murder of Santiago Nasar prior to the crime actually occurring, no one genuinely stopped the Vicario brothers. The townspeople “pouring in to testify” illustrates the selfish nature of people -- it wasn’t until after the murder that people began saying something, likely to make themselves not feel as guilty. Marquez writes “everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama”, depicting the somewhat television-esque aspect of the crime -- how could everyone know of the murder, yet no one prevented it from occurring? Despite the description of the crowd as desiring to show off their own important role, no townsperson played a significant role in Nasar’s murder; had someone actually been an “important role”, the murder wouldn’t have occurred in the first place. Again, this emphasizes the egotistical trait found in all humans. Humans want to feel free of guilt and humans do not want the blame placed on themselves. Psychologically speaking, humans tend to blame other factors, such as the environment, rather than themselves for negative events. The townspeople hadn’t even been called in to testify, yet everyone had witnessed the sequence of events, so they went in anyways. A key aspect of the phrase “everyone eager to show off his own important role in the drama” is the usage of egotistical diction, seen in the combination of “eager” and “show off”. In regards to a crime, it would be strange for witnesses wanting to “show off” and act “eagerly” about testify -- typically, it should actually be the opposite. The townspeople’s strange actions in the aftermath of Santiago Nasar’s murder demonstrates the selfishness of humans and their desire to free the blame from themselves.
I agree with your analysis. I think the authors commentary on society and human nature is very blatant. I wonder if the authors believes that these fatal flaws can be reversed or will always be present within the human race. The way that the town reacted to his death is very concerning and disturbing. Their inability to see their own action or the incapacity to accept what they have contributed to is astonishing, but not rare. I like how you interpreted this scene as something similar to a tv show, which I did not consider before.
DeleteSince my last blog post was about chapters 4 and 5 (I misread the announcement), I figured this one might as well be too.
DeleteThere is an astonishing lack of action taken in this book towards stopping the murder of Santiago Nasar. From our near-omniscient perspective, it is quite easy to judge the people for not doing anything, especially seeing as the book starts out: “there was never a death more foretold.” However, I want to try to break it down into a more personal perspective and see if the townsfolk are really so oblivious.
As we all know, the Twins eventually end up telling everyone they see that they’re going to kill Nasar. And, as we know, everyone blows it off; and for perfectly acceptable reasons. The Vicario brothers, especially considering the Wedding the night before, should be drunk off their wagon. Drunk people have a habit of saying simply whatever comes to mind, and so this is dismissed as drunkards banter. Additionally, the Vicario brothers and Nasar are friends, so the twins actually wanting to kill Nasar doesn’t make sense.
The only person who acts on this is Clotilde. This is because she is able to observe them for long periods of time, long enough to notice that no matter how much alcohol they drink, they aren’t getting drunk. They appear perfectly collected and with childlike sincerity about their plan. Freaked out and worried about Nasar’s life, Clotilde tells everyone she sees to tell Nasar. And nobody listens to her. Again, from an outside perspective, this seems crazy; how is no one doing anything about this? However, looking at the reasoning before, combined with the fact that most everyone is exhausted or hungover or both (from the party), they’re in their own little worlds. Plus, the Bishop is coming that day; it’s an important event (or it’s supposed to be) and people have to get ready.
Now we get to the real gritty part. Right before the murder occurs, “The people who were coming back from the docks, alerted by shouts, began to take up positions around the square to wittness the crime” (86%). This is pretty damning of the townsfolk. People are literally standing around and WAITING for a murder to take place before their eyes. How could you NOT do something? Well, first of all, mob mentality is a real thing, as is peer pressure; but most importantly is diffusion of responsibility. Like we touched on in class, it’s the idea that “oh, someone else will do something about it.” And think about it, how many times have you walked past a homeless person begging for food, or seen a piece of garbage on the ground and not pick it up, or not point out when a teacher makes a mistake because you were sure that someone else is going to do something? Same idea, just with a far more visible and obvious consequence. Imagine standing in a crowd of 100 people, watching someone verbally attacking someone else. You know you should do something, but it’s weird and uncomfortable and puts you out in the public, so you don’t want to do it. Surely one of them has to do something, right?
Anyway, this is really long winded, but my main point is that it’s easy to judge the people in this book, and it’s easy to say that of course you’d have done something. But honestly, looking at the facts: would you really?
(PS- I’m not saying you need to feed every homeless person you see, I’m just using it as an example)
I think you made a really interesting point and I totally agree. It is easy for everyone to say that they would have stopped it and speaking from personal experience (not a murder) but in previous events when I have been told to do something or act one way and literally no one else is doing it, I usually stop and do what people around me are doing. People are afraid to do something different because of the way people will judge them afterwards. Clotilde clearly attempted to get the word spread around but no one did it. I wonder if any of the townspeople were afraid that the Vicario brothers would hurt them if they actually got the murder prevented
DeleteChapter four is filled with a vivid description of Santiago Nasar's rotting body and the Vicario brothers time in jail. The gruesome description of his body and its decay as people observe Santiago elicits the recurrence of similar actions that lead to his death by the people around him. The lack of action taken by his community to prevent his death is presented as a societal flaw, but to further the crime no one establishes responsibility. The morbid imagery describing his body and the dismantling of it provides a clinical perspective of society representing the selfishness and barbarity of his community. The motif of honor as an incentive is brought up again with Pura Vicario and her rejected daughter. Marquez writes, “Pura Vicario wrapped the face of the rejected daughter in a cloth so that no one would see the bruises, and she dressed her in bright red so nobody might think she was mourning her secret lover” (82). This line had a large impact on the mood of the chapter because of the victimizing diction. This also establishes the idea that honor is more important than anything else. Angela wearing red symbolizes a lack of respect toward Santiago and his death, as black is the universal color for mourning. Also her mother tries to cover the bruises that she has caused presenting the idea once again that honor is more important than anything else. Her own mother inflicted her physical harm and she shows no remorse just as the Vicario brothers did because it was in the result of maintaining honor. It is stated that she is still in the possession of her honor and the Vicario brothers proved their status as men. The main sympathy of the town was for Bayardo San Roman who had lost his wife and the life he had planned. For the town it was easy to forget the horrific death that Santiago faced but not the misfortunes of Bayardo.
ReplyDeleteChapter five concludes the book with a scene from the perspective of the Vicario brothers when they killed Santiago brutally at his own mothers door. Animal diction used in this section describes Santiago being brutally slaughtered with no mercy as a pig would be. Another instance of animal diction is, “Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out a moan of a calf, and tried to turn his back to them” (118). This dehumanizes Santiago giving him little respect. This held true for everyone else in the town who only became involved in the murder for selfish reasons paying little respect to Santiago, especially when it is stated that he was going to die soon anyway for health reasons that may or may not be true. The passage oddly sympathizes with the brothers more so than Santiago. The way the event is presented allows the brothers to avoid being blamed because they were doing it to defend their family's honor. Their actions were looked at from a perspective that made it seem like a task that needed to be done and it was not a crime. Magical realism appears when the Pedro Vicario states that he had stabbed him three times and there wasn't a drop of blood and when everybody in the town hear Santiago's cry of pain. Santiago Nasar not bleeding from the first couple stabs supports the previous mention that his fate was set. In this chapter there are many instances where people describe him as having characteristics of someone that is dead before his actual death occurs. This supports the idea that his fate was inevitable. It was interesting that the whole town could hear Santiago's cry of pain while the Vicario brothers couldn't hear the screams from the people of the town. This places the blame solely on the people of the town who took no action to save Santiago. The Vicario brothers were blinded by their own supposedly justified motive while the rest of the people had nothing to hide behind. The passage ends with, “Nasar was still for an instant, leaning against the door, until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, and he fell on his knees” (119). The last line of the passage juxtaposes the brutal murder of Santiago when he takes his last breath. This line backs the idea that there is always peace right before death, even in his case where he is looking at his intestines in the sunlight.
ReplyDeleteThe animal diction in this chapter reminded me of something mentioned in the earlier chapters. In chapter 3 on page 53, the twins declare that they’re going to kill Santiago Nasar. The paragraph after that is interesting in relation to your post because it talks about how butchers typically wouldn’t be able to stomach killing a human being because of things like how they don’t look into the eyes of steers that they sacrifice and how they aren’t able to kill animals that they have known or love and also how they can’t eat the meat of animals that they kill themselves. It then goes on to say how the Vicario brothers slaughtered the animals that they kept and even had names for. This relates to what you were saying about how the animal diction makes Santiago seem like a weak animal.
Delete- Komal Raman
In chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we see a little bit more about the relationship between Bayardo San Roman and Angela Vicario. This allows the reader to get a more in depth understanding of the gender roles and sexism that was present in that time and place. It was interesting for me to see the extent of the sexism in this chapter by how much the people of the city pitied and admired Bayardo even though it’s more logical to feel empathetic towards Angela. Back in chapter 2, we discover that Angela had premarital sex and was therefore dishonored and given back to her mother by Bayardo because she was impure. Upon being returned to her mother she was beaten and shunned, yet Bayardo is still seen as the victim by the community. “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman” (83). The overall sympathy for Bayardo and the disdain for Angela can be traced back to the machismo and marianismo roles of the time. Even though Bayardo was a man that no one knew very well, and Angela was a woman who had lived in the town, the town still turned against Angela when the news of her ‘scandal’ broke out. This can be seen as an effect of the marianismo ideals that every woman seemed to need to fit into. For women, the ideal was to be as similar to the Virgin Mary as possible. This meant saintlike, submissive, as well as a virgin. Angela goes against all of this by not being a virgin at marriage as well as lying about her non virginity to her husband for months. For a man, the machismo role is very different. Being seen as a sexual playboy was an more of an honorable thing to be. These dynamics contributed to the rampant sexism that plagued that town and aided in the unfairness of the treatment of the once married pair.
ReplyDelete- Komal Raman
I completely agree with your analysis of the roles of Angela Vicario and Bayardo San Román; my blog post had the same subject as yours! I too noticed how machismo and marianismo played into how the town treated Bayardo and Angela. I thought it was really interesting how the whole town thought it was okay for the twins to kill Santiago so their family honor could be restored. I do not think they want to, but it is necessary to prove their masculinity because of the importance of machismo at the time of this novel. It really bothered me that Bayardo was seen as the victim even though Angela is heavily affected by the whole “scandal.” It was also really annoying knowing that if Bayardo did what Angela did, no one would have said anything and there would be no problem or “scandal” at all. I agree with how you related the concepts and expectations of machismo and marianismo with Bayardo and Angela.
DeleteI always find the last lines of books to be especially interesting, as do many people. In terms of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the last line doesn’t exactly seems like a last line. This can be due to the warped time line that adds to the magical realistic aspect of the novel. “He stumbled on the last step, but he got up at once. ‘He even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts,’ my Aunt Wene told me. Then he went into his house through the back door that had been open since six and fell on his face in the kitchen” (120). The book began with the the morning that Santiago Nasar was supposed to die and ends with the scene of Santiago’s death. If you look at those two scenes then the book almost seems like it would be in order, yet everything within the book is all out of order. This could possible be a metaphor for the crime itself. When looking at the murder of Santiago Nasar, there’s the solid facts that Angela Vicario told her brothers that Santiago was the one that took her virginity before marriage and her brothers vowing to kill him for honor, and the way that Santiago Nasar died, that was revealed with the autopsy, yet everything in between that time is blurry and muddled because the entire time seems to not remember. All of the townspeople have different accounts from the weather to the actual events and since it was 27 years ago, nothing is exactly certain. The formatting of the book is similar to the plot and tone in this way which leads to a very interesting novel.
ReplyDelete- Komal Raman
I also thought that the last line did not really seem like the last line since it just described how Santiago died falling on his face. In fact, I thought the book was unsatisfying because the readers never find out if Santiago was innocent or not. Aside from that, I agree with your analysis of the plot and formatting. For me, I found the title of this novel to be really ironic. The title begins with “Chronicle,” which is usually something factual that is recounted in chronological order. However, this novel is definitely not in chronological order as it skips around everywhere. In addition, it is definitely not factual. Although the main situation is plausible and realistic, there are aspects of magical realism embedded into the novel that make it a work of fiction. The title ends with “Foretold.” This has the connotation that nothing could be done to prevent the death that was foretold. For me, I think this is inaccurate because there were many things that could have been done to avoid Santiago’s death.
DeleteIn Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator discusses the days after Santiago is murdered. What I found really interesting was how Angela, Pablo, Pedro, and Bayardo were treated after the death of Santiago. The concept of machismo is present throughout the novel and often acts as somewhat of a moral compass for the town. Machismo promotes male dominance and the idea of a man being strong, aggressive, and a protector of his family. As a protector of the family, a man would also be responsible for maintaining the family’s honor. Pablo and Pedro Vicario killed Santiago because Angela accused him of taking her virginity, which ruined her family’s honor. Even though they killed someone, the Vicario brothers ultimately did not feel they did not something wrong since it was necessary in order to restore their family’s honor. It is obvious that others felt this way too since the brothers did not go to jail and were released after three years of waiting for their trial. “When they were absolved, they remained in Riohacha…” (Márquez, 83). This shows the importance of machismo in Colombian society at the time because even though they killed someone, they were let off the hook because it was necessary in order to restore honor and prove their masculinity. As for Bayardo, he became the victim of the whole situation. This shows the double standard that Colombian society held for men and women. Men were allowed and even encouraged at times to sleep around with different women. For women, they were forbidden to sleep with anyone before marriage and if they wanted to keep their status of being “pure.” I think that Angela faced the most consequences out of everyone involved, except for Santiago. She is beaten by her mom and the narrator states that her mom “had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life…” (Márquez, 89). In addition, she lost Bayardo, whom she obsesses over after he leaves. “She only had to close her eyes to see him, she heard him breathing into the sea…” (Márquez, 92).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concept that machismo is often what guides the moral code in the society that Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” is set in. I thought it was interesting how the marianismo of Angela was also used to juxtapose the difference in gender expectations. Gabriel Garcia Marquez was able to use this extreme machismo to create a statement about the law and society’s gender expectations. Even today, men and women are both bound to certain stereotypes and “desired” traits. Crimes with motives of honor and family name may also fall into a grey area when repercussions are discussed.
DeleteIn Chapter Five, the narrator discusses the effects of Santiago’s death on the townspeople. Almost everyone in the town knew about the danger Santiago was in and they were all eager to find out how their combined stories led to the murder of Santiago. The narrator writes, “The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible…” (Márquez, 96). For me, I found that all the different stories from the townspeople proved the incompetence of the town as a whole. For example, Cristo Bedoya, who tries to stop the Vicario brothers’ plan, informs the mayor of the situation. Instead of acting immediately, the mayor: “…went into the social club to check on a date for dominoes that night, and when he came out again the crime had already been committed,” (Márquez, 109).
ReplyDeleteThe magistrate investigates the town and what bothers him the most is the lack of evidence against Santiago as the man who took Angela’s virginity. I thought it was interesting that the focus of the magistrate was whether or not Santiago was innocent, but the focus of the town was all the “coincidences” that eventually led to the death of Santiago. While some are saddened by his death, ultimately, the townspeople are only concerned about themselves. For example, the narrator states that those feeling guilty for not acting more convinced themselves the whole thing was a matter of honor, so they did not have any right to interfere. I think that Santiago’s death was avoidable and that the townspeople should acknowledge that they could have prevented it instead of dismissing the whole situation as a “matter of honor.”
In the fourth chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” Santiago Nasar’s autopsy is retold in all of its macabre and gruesome glory. Without proper storage and post-mortem care of the corpse, the townspeople and towns-dogs flock over to gawk at his ruined body. By the end of the autopsy, Santiago Nasar’s body is wrecked and haphazardly put back together for its burial. “They gave us back a completely different body. Half of the cranium had been destroyed by the trepanation, and the lady-filler face that death had preserved ended up having lost its identity. Furthermore, the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail. The last onlookers ranged about the schoolhouse windows lost their curiosity, the helper fainted, and Colonel Lazaro Aponte, who had seen and caused so many repressive massacres, became a vegetarian as well as a spiritualist. The empty shell, stuffed with rags and quicklime and sewed up crudely with coarse twine and baling needles, was on the point of falling apart when we put it into the new coffin with its silk quilt lining.” (Marquez 76-77)
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Santiago Nasar’s dead body has lost his identity after the end of the cruel autopsy by Father Amador, and is hastily thrown into its coffin. Something that I found interesting was the juxtaposition of the body and the silk-lined and expensive coffin, which was earlier described as a “rich-man’s coffin.” Does this relate to machismo and honor? Despite Santiago Nasar’s supposed affair with Angela Vicario, he still maintains an honorable and manly figure, which is displayed and honored by his luxurious coffin.
In the final chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” the murder of Santiago Nasar is told in full detail. The ending of the story comes full compass to the first sentence of the first page, where his death is first stated. In this chapter, the narrator recounts his murder in vivid imagery, as well as the adverse effects that his death had onto other bystanders such as Hortensia Baute and Flora Miguel.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a passage that I found was most interesting about this chapter regarded the exact moment Pedro and Pablo Vicario began their vicious murder. “The knife went through the palm of his right hand and then sank into his side up to the hilt. Everybody heard his cry of pain. ‘Oh, mother of mine!’ Pedro Vicario pulled out his knife with his slaughter’s iron wrist and dealt him a second thrust almost in the same place. ‘The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean,’ Pedro Vicario declared to the investigator. ‘I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood.’” (Marquez 117-118).
In this passage, Gabriel Garcia Marquez suggests the idea that Santiago Nasar may have been innocent this entire time and undeserving of any crime or punishment that had been inflicted onto him. Pedro Vicario’s declaration of the knife pulling out cleanly represents Santiago Nasar’s purity and innocence; he had not committed the crime he was accused for so he did not bleed for it. The cleanliness of the blade may also symbolize Santiago Nasar’s sense of holiness and/or goodness. Numerous times throughout the story, church-related and biblical references are made depicting Nasar. He often wears white, resembling purity, and has been favored by the bishop from a young age. Even in the chapter before, his bloodied and torn body is compared to the crucifixion of Jesus.
I'm Trisha Nelson, from the USA. I contracted HIV 4 years ago, I was told by my doctor that there's no possible cure for HIV/AIDS. I started taking my ARV's, My CD4 was 77 and the viral load was 112,450. I did research on a herbal remedy and I saw Dr. James Herbal mixed medicine, also I saw a lot of testimonials about him on how he uses His strong herbal mix medicine to cure HIV/AIDS and other illnesses. I contacted him and told him my problems, He told me not to be worried anymore that I will benefit and get cured of his herbal medicine for HIV/Aids. I never doubted Him because I believed I will be cured as nature has the power to cure all kinds of sickness when herbal medicine is being used in the right proportion. He prepared his herbal drink and sent it to me, and I took it for 3 weeks morning and evening in a quantity he told me, after that, I went for a check-up, and I was cured of HIV. His herbal mix medicine has NO SIDE EFFECT AND EASY TO DRINK, there's no special diet when taking Dr. James herbal mix medicine. He told me he got cures for diseases like Alzheimer's disease, Cancer, Bipolar disorder, Herpes, Hepatitis, Schizophrenia, Fibromyalgia. Dupuytren's disease, Neoplastic, Diabetes, Celiac disease, Cerebral Amyloid Antipathy, HPV, Weak Erection, Wart Remover. Ataxia, Arthritis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Adrenocortical carcinoma. Asthma, Allergic, Wart Remover, Melanoma, Parkinson, pectoral dermatitis, thyroid, HPV, ALS, KIDNEY DISEASES, SHINGLES. Pile, You can reach him on his Email address [GREATCUREMAN@GMAIL.COM] INFO @ DRJAMESHERBALMIX@GMAIL.COM
ReplyDelete