In chapter 4 we were introduced to the symbol of smell. After the death it is evident that the lingering smell is symbolic of the guilt of the entire town. In chapter five Marquez exposes the beginning of the smell. When the Vicario brothers describe killing Santiago they describe the blood spurting out and say "it smelled like him"(118). If one puts the events in chronological order we see that this is the first time the "smell" is described. This suggests that the brothers immediately felt guilt once they began the murder. Marquez seems to do this in order to comment on human nature. Many people desire to do bad things. Most don't actually go through with it. However the few that do most likely begin to feel guilt directly after or even during it. Like we see in chapter four, the author is trying to show how people need to think before they act because once it is done, it cannot be taken back. For the Vicario brothers they likely regretted their actions or at least felt guilt right away. Unfortunately for them it was too late and what they did haunted the entire town through a sense of guilt symbolized by the "smell" that hungover the town.
While I was reading Chapter 5, I noticed how the Vicario twins kept saying how they were going to kill Santiago Nasar for their sister’s honor. However, did the Vicario really kill Santiago to regain honor, or was it to get revenge? Revenge is defined as, inflicting hurt or harm to someone for an injury or wrong done to someone else. The definition of honor is, high respect; esteem. The Vicario brothers claimed that they were killing Santiago for honor, but it seems as if that was just an excuse to get revenge on him. On page 112, it says, “Nevertheless, it seemed inconceivable to her that they were going to kill Santiago, but on the other hand, it occurred to her that they would force him to marry Angela Vicario in order to giver her back her honor.” This quote shows the actions that the brother could have taken rather than murdering Santiago. Instead, they wanted to get revenge on him and make Santiago pay for deflowering their sister. I think they killed him out of anger rather than the idea of regaining honor for their sister. By killing Santiago Nasar, the brothers did not gain any honor for their family. After the murder, their family was only thought of as corrupt and evil.
I agree with you. In this society, people value honor, and honor is taken seriously. The only way for a woman to advance in that society is probably through marriage. But, I don't think that their family is thought of as corrupt and evil. I feel like most people in that town agreed with the brothers and thought that death is a reasonable retribution for "Santiago taking her virginity".
That's actually a very interesting point you noticed. I do agree with you on the idea that if "honor" was truly what they wanted to redeem for their sister, they would have just forced Santiago and Angela to marry, but seeing as they went to the extent of killing him, it appears that maybe there was another motive: revenge. If this is really the case, then it goes to show just how powerful of a role emotions play in our actions.
Do you think that honor, at least for the twins, might be directly tied to revenge? That the twins might have been compelled to get revenge on Santiago for having sex with Angela because of the fact that it was seen as the honorable thing to do for two able-bodied male relatives to do in that scenario? I don't think honor and revenge were mutually exclusive or even separable in this scenario. The town's inaction when they knew about the Vicario twins' plan points to at least some complicit acceptance of the idea of revenge in the name of honor. The reaction by the townspeople to the murder after the fact seems to be more based on the lack of actual evidence of Santiago's guilt than a rejection of the motives behind the killing, and the short sentences served by the brothers also supports this.
I agree with you Nolan. I think that by redeeming honour by avenging Angela, the Vicarios also believed that their actions were bringing honour to God. They felt obligated to kill Santiago because that is what God wanted to happen.
Throughout the whole book/novella, there was a sense of inevitability, of fate. In Chapter five, when the narrator talks about the judge and how disturbed the judge was. Marquez writes, "Most of all, he never thought it legitimate that life should make use of so many coincidences forbidden literature, so that there should be the untrammeled fulfillment of a death so clearly foretold" (116). It's funny how the narrator describes a judge who writes a brief about a case but he himself cannot understand what has happened. The characters in the novella also act as if they couldn't have prevented his death, as if they had no other will than the will of the author. All the coincidences in the books are spoken of as strange. The narrator speaks as if he wanted to look at the facts to find out what happened but most of the facts in the book/novella are ridiculed with magical realism. even describing how the marginal notes "seemed to be written in blood". The magistrate's report in a way, is described almost as if it was a rough draft because of the red pen in the margins, it suggests that the murder is not a factual report, but a myth or fairy tale. Near the end of the book, the author once again shows us how inevitable the murder was. He writes, "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."(143). The door to his house was open, and he couldn't escape fate. Santiago could have survived if he had gone out through the back. There were so many possibilities, so many ways for Santiago to survive, to prevent his death. Just because his death has been foretold, was it really bound to happen? Are things really set in stone?
I love your comparison of the red pen to a rough draft. I agree, I think a major theme of this book is that people are confined by living the way they feel they should, rather than the way they feel is right. When people realise that they can change their life instead of simply accepting it, people are held more accountable for their actions and will hold themselves to a higher standard.
I really like your point about the narrator wanting to look at all the facts about the situation but when they are found they are ruined magical realism. I was actually going to say something in my blog about the marginal notes being "written in blood" so I'm glad you talked about that. To answer your question I feel that things aren't set in stone necessarily. In this particular book it seems as though the constant assumptions about Santiago's death and him knowing is what holds them back from telling him anything. If the people were truly willing to help him beforehand instead of right before he was killed I feel as though it could have been prevented.
While reading Chapter Five, a certain quote stood out to me,"The two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn't dare touch him." (Marquez, 102). While reading this, along with other Biblical references such as, "During the trial, which only lasted three days..." (100), it became clear to me that Santiago Nasar represents Jesus. Just as Jesus was killed, Santiago is murdered despite having committed no crime. The parallels between Santiago and Jesus represent the death of true Christian faith and morality. The sole purpose behind Santiago's death is a corrupt one, simply to alleviate a blow to the Vicario's honour. Judas betrayed Jesus for money, proving that in that time, money was seen as more valuable than life. Similarly, the people of Santiago's town clearly view honour as more important than Santiago's life and do nothing to stop his death. Just as Jesus warned his apostles ahead of time that one of them would betray him, Santiago's entire town knows about his death ahead of time, including Santiago himself. Just like Jesus, Santiago does not panic, but simply accepts his death calmly. After Jesus's death, his cloths are auctioned off as a way for the people to better themselves. After Santiago's death, his friends and neighbours did not mourn him; rather everyone was "eager to to off his own important role in the drama." (98). Using these parallels, Marquez demonstrates that true faith and love have been distorted by the corruption of wealth, honour, and human ego. Juxtaposing Santiago's death with Jesus's hit very close to home for many readers. Using such a personal comparison effectively calls out the glaring wrongness of the crime. However, Jesus may have died, but he did not stay dead for long. In this way, Marquez portrays that not all hope is lost, and that goodness will win out eventually. The Christian faith does have the potential to be revived, if only people are able to learn from their mistakes and improve not only their ways of living, but their reasons for living as well.
You've made a really good point that Santiago's death is similar to Jesus's death. Like Jesus, he died for a crime he didn't likely commit because there was no evidence that he deflowered Angela, and his death saved the life of the actual person who deflowered Angela, just like Jesus' death saves humanity. On the day Santiago got killed, he was wearing a white shirt which shows that he was pure and free from the sin of deflowering a person. Plus, right after Jesus died, there was an earthquake right at the place he got killed and Santiago's situation was similar because after Santiago's death, his smell haunts the town and the people who didn't step in to prevent his death became hysterical, spasm of the bladder, etc. Last, after Jesus got crucified, he prayed to forgive his crucifiers and there was no punishment that his crucifiers had to face after some of them repented. Even though the Vicario brothers suffered from their conscious, they moved on with their life later on.
I agree with your interpretations of Santiago in relation to Jesus. Santiago is supposedly a Christ-like figure in this book in that he's pure in the respect that he didn't commit the crime that others blame him for, and he lived in a town with corrupt citizens, much like how Jesus lived in a town with many ungodly people. I also found that there are many instances with the number three in this book, "I'd given it to him at least three times and there wasn't a drop of blood." (108) and "During the trial, which only lasted three days..." (100). Similarly, in the Bible, the number three is significant, such as Peter denying Jesus three times and Jesus' resurrection three days after his burial. Marquez utilizes a lot of Biblical reference in this book.
Because honor was highly valued during that time, I thought that the people would go along acting as if they know nothing of the Vicarios' brothers plot until Santiago gets killed. However, I didn't expect that the people "began to shout at him from every side, and Santiago Nasar went backward and forward several times, baffled by hearing so many voices at the same time" (pg. 136). It's interesting how they all try to help him at once in last minute when they had all time to warn him, but no one tries to warn him before. At this point, they don't regard honor as much, and they seem to care more about Santiago's life. This points out that they didn't warn Santiago beforehand not because they want him to die to preserve honor, but they don't want to be singled out and deal with this alone if they warn Santiago. However, they are willing to warn him as a crowd because they want to be anonymous in this situation. This generalizes to the fact that humans are more open and show more of their internal selves when they are anonymous.
As I was reading the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I picked up on quite a bit of religious references and tones made obvious by particular diction and imagery. Cristo Bedoya tells the narrator that on the day of Santiago Nasar's murder, "Of course it wasn't raining.... It was just going on seven and a golden sun was already coming through the windows" (125). The reader knows of the gruesome imminent murder and this positive imagery is surprising because it is not expected. The "golden sun" can be associated with the heavens, which is a rather peaceful image. Continuation with the light imagery is evident in the lines, "A beam of dusty light was coming in through the skylight, and the beautiful woman asleep on her side in the hammock, her bride's hand on her cheek, had an unreal look" (126) and "He saw her in the full light, wearing a dressing gown with golden larks..." (126). The tone here is tranquil and dreamy with descriptive words such as "light" and "golden," again, something that is totally in contrast with the panic and chaos of the town. Polo Carrillo also mentioned how he thought Santiago Nasar's "money made him untouchable" (120) and the word "untouchable" is interesting in the way that it relates to God; no one can physically touch Him. Cristo Bedoya ran into Father Amador in the town, which slightly highlights the religious aspect of the town. Also, the way in which the murder of Santiago Nasar was conducted draws a parallel to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is explained that Santiago Nasar was knifed against the door, similar to how Jesus was nailed to the cross, and a line further illustrating this comparison states, "The knife went through the palm of his right hand..." (138). The author, Marquez, uses these religious allusions to communicate a general message of sacrifice/martyrdom in the face of injustice.
I like your connection. I also see the connection of how Jesus and Santiago Nasar were both blamed for something that they didn't do yet they both reacted with an utter calmness to the threats on their lives
I really like your analysis and I think it brought up good points that I wouldn't have thought of!! I think the heavens and golden light imagery are very significant and I think that the fact that Cristo Bedoya ran into Santiago's mother is another parallell to Jesus's mother, Mary.
I find it interesting how alcohol and other substances are melded into the broken society. The narrator describes, “ In the squalid wooden office in the town hall, drinking pot coffee laced with cane liquor against the mirages of the heat” (Marquez, 115). The town was initially called an open wound and the investigating magistrate is the one drinking. Alcohol is a primary ingredient in cleaning out open wounds. It is interesting how it is mentioned here because the magistrate, who is supposed to help the town is using it to drown out his own hallucinations. Alcohol is being used to represent both the cleaner and the intoxicant. Marquez has shown that throughout the story, the town has been drunk on something. In chapter 5, the characters are wrought with guilt. the mirages of the heat as mentioned in the quote symbolizes the false hopes that the characters feel as they are trying to come up with excuses. The fact that the magistrate is secretly taking in alcohol himself shows that he has been affected by the town to an extent that he needs alcohol to cleanse himself from the mood of the town.
I found your interpretation of the role of alcohol really interesting -- how do you think this relates to the character of Santiago Nasar? If drinking alcohol, or being drunk, is a way of "cleansing," then what does that say about all the other characters who drank extensively? It was also mentioned that the Vicario brothers were very drunk before they committed the murder - maybe that symbolizes the fact that the twins were also trying to escape the reality of their situation.
To refer back to my first blog post, my first initial feelings towards Santiago were very negative. When he was murdered, I didn’t really feel that sense of remorse because I thought that he truly had committed this crime against the Vicarios. Although it came into question throughout the rest of the book whether this was a false accusation, we get a clear view on the situation in the last chapter. When reading Chapter 5, my thoughts quickly reversed when Marquez writes, “the victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence”(118). This made me question whether or not Angela was ever telling the truth. We can see that this confusion in the quote, “Nevertheless, what had alarmed him most at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong”(117). Given that these were the thoughts of the Judge, and the quotes following about Angela not giving the specifics of the situation, made me come to the conclusion that Angela was lying about this to get out of the marriage to Bayardo. When I realized this, my thoughts towards Santiago and Angela were completely transposed and I soon realized that Angela was the sole cause of Santiago’s death. However this led me to the question of why she would admit to something that never happened especially if she knew that it would ruin her reputation? If somebody would like to add on to this or have any opposing viewpoints please share!
I like your point on how the reader's viewpoint, and your viewpoint, of Santiago changes throughout the book. The reason this interests me is because my view of Angela did not change throughout the book even though we learn that she falsely accuses Santiago of taking her virginity and eventually causes him to be killed. Despite her large part in the murder, I still only feel bad for her for the fact that she was not able to marry Bayardo. An answer to your question: I think Angela was in a situation where she was forced to give someone's name and like the narrator theorized, she probably chose Santiago's name it was unlikely that he would be killed and possibly because she didn't know him very well so his murder would not have effected her.
Reading through the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I appreciated the book’s description of the myriad ways guilt over Santiago Nasar’s murder affected the townspeople. As put in the first paragraph of the chapter, “…none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). With this line, the narrator of the story makes not only a comment on the mental state of the town, but also on the way humans deal with guilt. The townspeople, of course, share a profound sense of guilt over the death of Santiago—each one, including the narrator, believes that they could have done something to stop his murder. This guilt manifests itself in the villagers’ preoccupation with their fate: the villagers believe that they will all be punished by God for what they (didn’t) do, and, ironically enough, guilt over someone’s death has caused even more people to stop living their lives in the way that they used to, from Hortensia Baute “[running] out naked in the street” (97) to Aura Villeros needing to use a catheter for the rest of her life. The book is hyperbolic in describing the effects of guilt, but the severity with which guilt affects the townspeople made me think back to the activity we did in class at the start of the unit where we learned about the murder of Kitty Genovese. Many people thought the bystanders in that case, who weren’t charged with any crimes, should have been punished. In this story, the bystanders to a murder were also not punished by formal justice system, but they receive a strong punishment in the form of crippling guilt for doing nothing. By using hyperbole to show how negatively the guilt the villagers experienced affected the villagers, Marquez makes the point that those who fail to respond and help others will suffer a punishment, even if it comes from internal sources as opposed to external ones.
I was very intrigued by the final death scene of Santiago Nasar. Even though Santiago gets horribly mutilated, he remains calm and even appears to retain his dignity. In fact, right before he died, he "even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts" (120). I find this highly ironic because here Santiago is having just been previously stabbed numerous times and he's taking care to clean off his guts like it is no big deal. On the other side, Pablo and Pedro Vicario were the ones to kill Santiago, and they end up losing their dignity by being sent to jail and suffering from guilt. I am most surprised at how Santiago reacts to his death. To quote "his [Santiago] back against his mother's door without the slightest resistance, as if he only wanted to help them finish killing him, by his own contribution 'he didn't cry out again...just the opposite: it looked to me as if he was laughing.' " (118). In this quote, it is evident that Santiago admits defeat and his death seems almost noble; like Santiago new he was going to die and resigned himself to that fate, quietly accepting his death. After the Vicario Twins finish, Santiago then proceeds to walk "more than a hundred yards" (119) through the neighbor's house where Argenida Lanao, who watches Santiago observe that he, "walked with his usual good bearing, measuring his steps well, and that his Saracen face with its dashing ringlets was handsomer than ever" (120). I found this part most interesting because even after being brutally stabbed, Santiago manages the strength to walk for a copious amount of time and to others, he still retained his attractiveness. All Santiago wanted to do was return to his house before he dies rather unceremoniously on the floor. Because of this, Santiago seems more honorable than both Pedro and Pablo combined. In the most stereotypical way of saying this, he takes his death 'like a man'. This would be a very honorable way for someone to handle their death, especially for a not so honorable reason. On a side note, I felt that Santiago's death was rather anticlimactic, especially for the huge buildup throughout the entirety of the book. It seemed such a big deal to the town, but Santiago's death was quick in the end. I would still like to analyze more of the final death scene In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold", but overall, I thought this scene was effective in creating a contrast between Santiago and the Twins and proved a reversal of roles between the two characters, creating an ironic effect to the story.
"'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, 139). This quote left the strongest impression on me -- it finalized, at least for me, the idea that Santiago Nasar was completely innocent of the crime he was murdered for. The combination of beautiful imagery and clean diction in the murder scene really seem to contrast with the brutality of the situation. For example, when Pablo slashed Santiago across the stomach,"Santiago was still... until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, and he fell on his knees" (Marquez, 141). While the intestines aren't exactly an example of magical realism, the lack of blood on the first three stabs of the knife certainly is - demonstrating that there was no honor gained in killing him (we often describe vengeful characters as "out for blood"). Yet, both quotes possess a recurring them of cleanliness that ironically illustrates a quality of purity in Santiago - a quality that was lost in his death.
Though Marquez uses irony throughout the entire book, the final pages that describe Santiago Nasar’s death contain some of the strongest examples of irony. Just before the Vicario brothers trap Santiago Nasar, he is accidentally betrayed by his mother, “she was putting up the bar when she heard Santiago Nasar’s shouts and and she heard the terrified pounding at the door” (117). This misfortune is ironic for two reasons. The mother is seen as a guardian figure in society and Santiago’s mother is a fortune teller who supposedly knows everything before anyone else. This irony symbolizes how everyday members of society failed to do their job and protect Santiago similar to how his mother was unable to save him before his death. After the Vicario brothers stabbed him repeatedly, Pedro described Santiago as, “‘it looked to me as if he was laughing’” (118). Santiago may not have actually been laughing Pedro’s perception of Santiago shows his guilt and illustrates Marquez’s point that the Vicario brothers are childish and simple for believing so heavily in honor. Finally,just before his death, Santiago enters his house after after receiving many fatal wounds, “Santiago Nasar walked with his usual good bearing, measuring his steps well, and that his Saracen face with his dashing ringlets was handsomer than ever” (120). Santiago final actions seem strange and utilize an element of magical realism (though everyone is also surprised so there is less realism and more magical) because no one could have walked so normally after the beating Santiago had endured. This imagery and irony illustrates the fact that even after the attack from the Vicario brothers, Santiago maintains his identity, contrasting the earlier description of the autopsy where the body is left unrecognizable. Marquez uses this juxtaposition of the imagery of Santiago’s body and state to put more of the blame of the murder on the town rather than the Vicario twins.
The main part of chapter five was the retelling of Santiago Nasar's death. The first thing that stood out to me was Pedro Vicario saying, "'The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean" (117-188). This was very important because it showed that Santiago was truly innocent. The imagery of Santiago letting "out the moan of a calf" (118) dehumanized him because cows are usually killed for sacrificial purposes and represented how the Vicario brothers killed Santiago in order to regain their sister's honor. Santiago is also said to have gotten a "stab in the back." This represents how, because the townspeople didn't warn Santiago, they aided in his murder. The narrator also mentions the town and how it was "frightened by its own crime." The narrator calls the crime the whole town's because in a way it was the town's fault Santiago died because none of them went and told Santiago directly. When Pedro Vicario tries to end Santiago by stabbing him in the heart, he looks "for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it." Pedro Vicario trying to kill Santiago like a pig dehumanizes Santiago which refers back to how he is just like a sacrificial calf. After the Vicarios are done, they run toward the church and "hot in pursuit was Yamil Shaium with his jaguar gun and some other unarmed Arabs" (119). This whole part is ironic because first of all, after killing someone who is innocent, the Vicario twins run to a church. Second, it is ironic that people go running after the twins after Santiago Nasar is killed. They hadn't tried to help Santiago when he was alive but now they decide to stop the twins. Marquez uses violent imagery and irony when describing Santiago Nasar's death and the reactions of the townspeople.
In chapter five I really noticed how sad Santiago Nasar's death was. The tone and language of the book became very depressing and gruesome. The entire society of the town felt no compassion towards his murder but then later followed with guilt. I came to the realization that the whole community during this time and especially the culture was supposed to be a sense of “community” and “togetherness.” The community was supposed to protect one another but in this book it is the complete opposite when talked about his murder. I think that many of the readers could interpret this in many ways. There obviously is a lesson to be learned here and to look out for others when they are in danger. Majority of the townspeople start to feel grief and guilt from his murder but, “my personal impression is that he died without understanding his death,” (118). This really made me sad because he could have gone the entire day without being treated differently and actually have a sense of why he was being murdered. He said he had no idea why he was murdered and I think Marquez would like to have readers think about the importance of these acts happening in everyday life.
The purpose of chapter 5 was to see what really happened to Santiago, although there were many interesting things in this chapter, a thing that was really interesting to me and kind of weird was that after Santiago being stabbed, he was still able to stand up and walk around, with his intestines out of his stomach! After reading this, the imagery of this reminded me of machismo, of all the things that Santiago has done throughout the book, from hunting as a man does, touching women were he is not suppose to, and supposedly deflowering Angela, and then this, standing up after being extremely hurt, this is all the definition of machismo. Although another thing that I found interesting about this situation of Santiago standing up with his intestines out, kind of made me think that this was also magical realism, I don’t believe that a person can stand up and walk to the back door with their intestines out. What do you think, can this also be magical realism?
Santiago Nasar’s innocence is emphasized throughout Chapter 5. Although there have been many instances where there is no proof that Santiago deflowered Angela Vicario, Chapter 5 strengthens this idea. Santiago Nasar knew that the town was speculating if Santiago really slept with Angela, “No one knew Bayardo San Roman very well, but Santiago Nasar knew him well enough to know that... he was as subject as anyone else to his native prejudices.” (101). Even though he knew that people were going to kill him because of the uproar that he caused, he didn’t really care what others thought of him, “...when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was... the bewilderment of innocence.” (101). This shows Santiago’s pride. He didn’t escape from the brothers even though he knew that they were targeting him, but instead, he faced them because he knew that he was innocent and didn’t find it necessary to tell others the truth, demonstrating that he really didn’t care about his honor like the rest of the people in the town. Because of his decision, I feel sympathy for Santiago, but at the same time, I wonder why he would die rather than save his honor? Is saving his pride more important than anything else? Another instance that supports Santiago’s innocence is when he is stabbed by the Vicario brothers. Pedro Vicario, while retelling the event to the narrator says, “The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean.” (117). This is also one of many examples of magical realism found in this book. Realistically, a person who is stabbed multiple times will indefinitely have blood spewing out of his body. In Santiago’s case, after he was stabbed three times, still no blood came out, which suggests his purity in the case of not committing the action that others blame him for. Santiago’s purity juxtaposed with the brutality of the killing suggests the lost of his purity due to the murder.
Amongst Santiago's death and his innocence, the reader gets a closer look at Flora Miguel throughout Chapter 5. Marque skillfully utilizes dramatic imagery and harsh diction in order to characterize Flora and her temperamental outburst because of Santiago Nassar's actions. Once she finds out that her soon-to-be husband will be killed, "it occurred to her that they would force Santiago to marry Angela in order to give her back her honor, causing her to weep in her room with rage and put in order the chestful of letters that Nassar sent her from school"(132-133). Angela's actions are key as she doesn't reach out to her fiancé and tell him that he is going to be killed, but she rather takes it upon herself to grieve that he will never be hers again. Marquez states that she 'weeps with rage' and "reminiscing over letters' in order to expose the dramatic nature of her actions with the aid of imagery. She is more upset about the potential of Santiago's forced marriage to Angela rather than the threat that he faces from the Vicario brothers. She experiences paranoia and grief in that order because she is more concerned about the humiliation she will be facing if Santiago marries Angela. She doesn't realize that the threat is more important because she is focused on her own honor and status, which she doesn't want to ruin. As she confronts Santiago, she states: "I hope they kill you"(134). This five word statement completely reveals Flora's real self. Not only does she know that her fiancé will be killed by the twins but she also hopes that they follow through with their plan. The strained diction and short sentence syntax displays emotional detachment, as she isn't thinking of her words and its impact on Nassar. She simply states, in a lethal manner, that she hopes Santiago gets what he deserves: death. Her attitude is reciprocal, as Santiago has put her though hell and back with his alleged sexual affair with Angela. The combination of paranoia and grief from her part goes to show that Flora does care about Santiago, but she also cares about her self enough to be able to drop him if he poses threat to her honor in society.
The most prudent passage of chapter 5 is when Marquez describes the gruesome murder of Santiago Nasar. Many parts of this passage stood out to me. The first three stabs that Pedro and Pablo did were especially intriguing, "I'd given it to him at least three times and there wasn't a drop of blood." (pg. 118) This quote by Pedro Vicarrio is interesting because it can be seen to relate back to the bible, Peter the Decibel lied about Jesus three times and this reflects how Pedro stabs Santiago and the fact that he does not start to bleed, which can make Santiago be seen as holy figure and more than mortal. Another interesting part of chapter 5 is the way the twins felt when stabbing santiago, "I felt the way you do when you're galloping on horseback." (pg118) for such noble and religious man who are killing out of the honor of their family, you would not expect them to feel empowered or a sense of happiness when stabbing Santiago. The morals of the twins are very corrupted as well for the townspeople, what do you think Marquez is trying to portray about the twins and their religious affiliations?
I know this has been discussed a couple times, but I wanted to highlight the irony of the importance of religion in this town. Throughout chapter five the diction and imagery used have religious themes and undertones. For example when Santiago is stabbed through the hand it is a parallel to Jesus Christ's crucifixion. However this is not the ironic piece in the story. I think the most ironic part of the chapter was when Cristo Bedoya ran into the priest of the town, Father Amador, who said "he didn't think he could do anything for Santiago Nasar except save his soul." (Page 127 in the green copy). This is ironic because in this town and culture, religion and religious figures are very important and demand a lot of respect (hence all the preparations for the bishop's arrival) so for Father Amador to say he has no power, is ridiculous. He is probably the person with the most influence over the brothers because in their eyes, he is their connection to the spiritual beyond. Father Amador's non-reaction to the cold-blooded murder of Santiago Nasar is another symbol of the corruption of religion in this town. For the overall book, this creates an almost finalized tone of despair. There is no one who wants to take direct action who is in a position of power, and the faith of the brothers has clearly fallen into shambles so much so that they are willing to kill a man for a simple question of honor. The narrator even mentions that one of Flora Miguel's (Santiago's fiance) fears was that he would have to marry Angela in order to restore her honor. This implies that there was another way to restore her honor and Santiago's death was unnecessary. With religious intervention on Father Amador's part (ie counseling the brothers) perhaps Santiago's Nasar's messy death could have been avoided.
The story has the motif of sleep throughout all of it that represents death. In the first chapter, Santiago was seen as “being a little sleepy” (2) an hour before he was murdered. Santiago being sleepy was foreshadowing his descent into death. As the Vicario brothers prepared themselves for the slaughter, they looked like “insomniac sleepwalkers” (16), portraying how the death will then haunt them, just as sleep haunts insomniacs. Since the Nahir Miguel ordered the Miguel family to sleep until noon, “That’s why Flora Miguel, who wasn’t that young anymore, was preserved like a rose,” (131). Flora’s preservation as a rose was a connection to embalming, an act of sustaining a corpse, to symbolize that, in spite of Santiago’s death, she is still capable of continuing her life (something she neglects to do).
In the final chapter of the book, it is finally confirmed that Santiago in fact was innocent of his crime. The crime was not a legal crime, but the crime of taking Angela's virginity was a crime against her honor, and her brothers took action into their own hands to restore that. This makes me wonder.. who actually was it that took her virginity? We will never know, there is no way to find out, but it is interesting to think about how they reacted to Santiago's death. Santiago is quoted on saying "I don't understand a God-damned thing" (Marguez 114), and this is not the reaction you would expect from a guilty man when his life is in imminent danger. This language by Santiago displays his innocence, and gives yet another religious reference in this play. Like many others have said, this is another parallel that Santiago has with Jesus. Both died for somebody else. Jesus died on the cross to take away the sins of those who believed in him, and Santiago died for whoever truly took Angela's virginity. Santiago though, did not do this willingly, and like in Jesus' case, the whole town and society is to be blamed.
In the fifth and final chapter, it is shown that the townsfolk saw themselves as simple spectators to the murder of Santiago Nazar rather than players that could have affected the outcome. Years later, they found themselves to have simply been an audience the honor killing. “never managed to explain to himself why he gave in to the impulse to spend two hours at his grandparents' house... waiting for him since dawn to warn him.” (113) This shows that while many people chose to avoid the situation all together, no one truly knew why they were compelled to simply watch. “Everything that happened after that is in the public domain” (129) This word choice of “public domain” gives the idea that the situation is something to be shared. A story to be told to as many people as possible, as if Santiago's death was a plot twist from a TV show that those who bore witness to it got to be the first to find out.
The vivid imagery used to describe the killing of Santiago used in Chapter Five is something that I found very important in the book. I believe Marquez put this vivid imagery and magical realism of the murdering and the intestines of Santiago falling out to portray a tone of the death and an overall more symbolic message. The death of Santiago took a lot of stabbing and was very prolonged. I think the multiple stabs signify all of the people who could of stopped the death yet didn't. Also Santiago was a symbol of the faith and somewhat of purity within the town, ironically, and so this also demonstrates how the town all together (symbolized through the multiple stabbings) is the reason that religion is failing and together as a community they killed the purity and saintly hood. I think that Marquez specifically uses this graphic detail to get the impact of the death to the reader. The death lingered in the town for awhile and so I think that Marquez wants the reader to have that same feeling of the eerie lingering. Also there is a lot of magical realism used within this passage. We see through the prolonged death of Santiago. Marquez uses magical realism in this passage to show how it was a normal day that Santiago died and the fact that people just let it happen and watched. Just like societies see evil happening and corruption but don't do anything about it.
In this chapter, Marquez uses symbolism and characterization to emphasize to the reader that it is important to recognize when one's biases allow one to distance oneself from the meanings or moral significance of events – or to invent meaning when there is none. The magistrate, who the narrator described (not disapprovingly) as a “man burning with the fever of literature”, demonstrates both forms of bias (99). Considering the documentary-like cataloging of so many other character names, it is unusual that the narrator claims to have never found the magistrate's name in any records; it is likely that Marquez intentionally made this character something of a blank slate in terms of identity because the reader is intended to identify with the magistrate. The magistrate's social class and level of education may also show Marquez's awareness of his audience, which probably includes a number of people who would consider themselves above the “unsophisticated” town depicted in this book. The psychological distancing and insensitivity of the magistrate toward the trial – which he views as a grand story – criticizes the reader's possibly judgmental attitude toward similar situations in reality. The magistrate, who was “so perplexed by the enigma that fate had touched him with, that he kept calling into lyrical distractions that ran contrary to the rigor of his profession”, is so absurdly emotionless toward his duties that he seems like a foolish noble of myth and legend (as is appropriate for the overall style of magical realism). Overall, Marquez's characterization of the frivolous magistrate creates a emotional impact by forcing the reader to question his or her own attitude toward the concept and execution of justice.
In the fifth chapter, the view points of the townspeople are examined in further depth. The reader learns about many other events that transpire, all of which help show how the townspeople view themselves as spectators of the crime, as if it is entertainment, not murder. In all this, the narrator himself admits blame because he is part of the community. The use of first person journalism combined with fiction is interesting in this aspect because it allows the narrator to be a part of the community, but yet we know very little about the narrator. In fact, we know the least about him out of all the characters. Garcia-Marquez uses this absence of knowledge to create a mood of mystery surrounding the narrator, which could possibly be symbolic of our knowledge about the crime in general. In the end, we know very little about both the narrator and the crime. What do you think, was Garcia-Marquez trying to use our absence of knowledge on the narrator to be/ symbolic of our understanding of this event in general?
In the fifth chapter, the view points of the townspeople are examined in further depth. The reader learns about many other events that transpire, all of which help show how the townspeople view themselves as spectators of the crime, as if it is entertainment, not murder. In all this, the narrator himself admits blame because he is part of the community. The use of first person journalism combined with fiction is interesting in this aspect because it allows the narrator to be a part of the community, but yet we know very little about the narrator. In fact, we know the least about him out of all the characters. Garcia-Marquez uses this absence of knowledge to create a mood of mystery surrounding the narrator, which could possibly be symbolic of our knowledge about the crime in general. In the end, we know very little about both the narrator and the crime. What do you think, was Garcia-Marquez trying to use our absence of knowledge on the narrator to be/ symbolic of our understanding of this event in general?
In chapter 4 we were introduced to the symbol of smell. After the death it is evident that the lingering smell is symbolic of the guilt of the entire town. In chapter five Marquez exposes the beginning of the smell. When the Vicario brothers describe killing Santiago they describe the blood spurting out and say "it smelled like him"(118). If one puts the events in chronological order we see that this is the first time the "smell" is described. This suggests that the brothers immediately felt guilt once they began the murder. Marquez seems to do this in order to comment on human nature. Many people desire to do bad things. Most don't actually go through with it. However the few that do most likely begin to feel guilt directly after or even during it. Like we see in chapter four, the author is trying to show how people need to think before they act because once it is done, it cannot be taken back. For the Vicario brothers they likely regretted their actions or at least felt guilt right away. Unfortunately for them it was too late and what they did haunted the entire town through a sense of guilt symbolized by the "smell" that hungover the town.
ReplyDeleteheyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Deletecoochie man
DeleteWhile I was reading Chapter 5, I noticed how the Vicario twins kept saying how they were going to kill Santiago Nasar for their sister’s honor. However, did the Vicario really kill Santiago to regain honor, or was it to get revenge? Revenge is defined as, inflicting hurt or harm to someone for an injury or wrong done to someone else. The definition of honor is, high respect; esteem. The Vicario brothers claimed that they were killing Santiago for honor, but it seems as if that was just an excuse to get revenge on him. On page 112, it says, “Nevertheless, it seemed inconceivable to her that they were going to kill Santiago, but on the other hand, it occurred to her that they would force him to marry Angela Vicario in order to giver her back her honor.” This quote shows the actions that the brother could have taken rather than murdering Santiago. Instead, they wanted to get revenge on him and make Santiago pay for deflowering their sister. I think they killed him out of anger rather than the idea of regaining honor for their sister. By killing Santiago Nasar, the brothers did not gain any honor for their family. After the murder, their family was only thought of as corrupt and evil.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. In this society, people value honor, and honor is taken seriously. The only way for a woman to advance in that society is probably through marriage. But, I don't think that their family is thought of as corrupt and evil. I feel like most people in that town agreed with the brothers and thought that death is a reasonable retribution for "Santiago taking her virginity".
DeleteThat's actually a very interesting point you noticed. I do agree with you on the idea that if "honor" was truly what they wanted to redeem for their sister, they would have just forced Santiago and Angela to marry, but seeing as they went to the extent of killing him, it appears that maybe there was another motive: revenge. If this is really the case, then it goes to show just how powerful of a role emotions play in our actions.
DeleteDo you think that honor, at least for the twins, might be directly tied to revenge? That the twins might have been compelled to get revenge on Santiago for having sex with Angela because of the fact that it was seen as the honorable thing to do for two able-bodied male relatives to do in that scenario? I don't think honor and revenge were mutually exclusive or even separable in this scenario. The town's inaction when they knew about the Vicario twins' plan points to at least some complicit acceptance of the idea of revenge in the name of honor. The reaction by the townspeople to the murder after the fact seems to be more based on the lack of actual evidence of Santiago's guilt than a rejection of the motives behind the killing, and the short sentences served by the brothers also supports this.
DeleteI agree with you Nolan. I think that by redeeming honour by avenging Angela, the Vicarios also believed that their actions were bringing honour to God. They felt obligated to kill Santiago because that is what God wanted to happen.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the whole book/novella, there was a sense of inevitability, of fate. In Chapter five, when the narrator talks about the judge and how disturbed the judge was. Marquez writes, "Most of all, he never thought it legitimate that life should make use of so many coincidences forbidden literature, so that there should be the untrammeled fulfillment of a death so clearly foretold" (116). It's funny how the narrator describes a judge who writes a brief about a case but he himself cannot understand what has happened. The characters in the novella also act as if they couldn't have prevented his death, as if they had no other will than the will of the author. All the coincidences in the books are spoken of as strange. The narrator speaks as if he wanted to look at the facts to find out what happened but most of the facts in the book/novella are ridiculed with magical realism. even describing how the marginal notes "seemed to be written in blood". The magistrate's report in a way, is described almost as if it was a rough draft because of the red pen in the margins, it suggests that the murder is not a factual report, but a myth or fairy tale. Near the end of the book, the author once again shows us how inevitable the murder was. He writes, "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."(143). The door to his house was open, and he couldn't escape fate. Santiago could have survived if he had gone out through the back. There were so many possibilities, so many ways for Santiago to survive, to prevent his death. Just because his death has been foretold, was it really bound to happen? Are things really set in stone?
ReplyDeleteI love your comparison of the red pen to a rough draft. I agree, I think a major theme of this book is that people are confined by living the way they feel they should, rather than the way they feel is right. When people realise that they can change their life instead of simply accepting it, people are held more accountable for their actions and will hold themselves to a higher standard.
DeleteI really like your point about the narrator wanting to look at all the facts about the situation but when they are found they are ruined magical realism. I was actually going to say something in my blog about the marginal notes being "written in blood" so I'm glad you talked about that. To answer your question I feel that things aren't set in stone necessarily. In this particular book it seems as though the constant assumptions about Santiago's death and him knowing is what holds them back from telling him anything. If the people were truly willing to help him beforehand instead of right before he was killed I feel as though it could have been prevented.
DeleteWhile reading Chapter Five, a certain quote stood out to me,"The two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn't dare touch him." (Marquez, 102). While reading this, along with other Biblical references such as, "During the trial, which only lasted three days..." (100), it became clear to me that Santiago Nasar represents Jesus. Just as Jesus was killed, Santiago is murdered despite having committed no crime. The parallels between Santiago and Jesus represent the death of true Christian faith and morality. The sole purpose behind Santiago's death is a corrupt one, simply to alleviate a blow to the Vicario's honour. Judas betrayed Jesus for money, proving that in that time, money was seen as more valuable than life. Similarly, the people of Santiago's town clearly view honour as more important than Santiago's life and do nothing to stop his death. Just as Jesus warned his apostles ahead of time that one of them would betray him, Santiago's entire town knows about his death ahead of time, including Santiago himself. Just like Jesus, Santiago does not panic, but simply accepts his death calmly. After Jesus's death, his cloths are auctioned off as a way for the people to better themselves. After Santiago's death, his friends and neighbours did not mourn him; rather everyone was "eager to to off his own important role in the drama." (98). Using these parallels, Marquez demonstrates that true faith and love have been distorted by the corruption of wealth, honour, and human ego. Juxtaposing Santiago's death with Jesus's hit very close to home for many readers. Using such a personal comparison effectively calls out the glaring wrongness of the crime. However, Jesus may have died, but he did not stay dead for long. In this way, Marquez portrays that not all hope is lost, and that goodness will win out eventually. The Christian faith does have the potential to be revived, if only people are able to learn from their mistakes and improve not only their ways of living, but their reasons for living as well.
ReplyDeleteYou've made a really good point that Santiago's death is similar to Jesus's death. Like Jesus, he died for a crime he didn't likely commit because there was no evidence that he deflowered Angela, and his death saved the life of the actual person who deflowered Angela, just like Jesus' death saves humanity. On the day Santiago got killed, he was wearing a white shirt which shows that he was pure and free from the sin of deflowering a person. Plus, right after Jesus died, there was an earthquake right at the place he got killed and Santiago's situation was similar because after Santiago's death, his smell haunts the town and the people who didn't step in to prevent his death became hysterical, spasm of the bladder, etc. Last, after Jesus got crucified, he prayed to forgive his crucifiers and there was no punishment that his crucifiers had to face after some of them repented. Even though the Vicario brothers suffered from their conscious, they moved on with their life later on.
DeleteI agree with your interpretations of Santiago in relation to Jesus. Santiago is supposedly a Christ-like figure in this book in that he's pure in the respect that he didn't commit the crime that others blame him for, and he lived in a town with corrupt citizens, much like how Jesus lived in a town with many ungodly people. I also found that there are many instances with the number three in this book, "I'd given it to him at least three times and there wasn't a drop of blood." (108) and "During the trial, which only lasted three days..." (100). Similarly, in the Bible, the number three is significant, such as Peter denying Jesus three times and Jesus' resurrection three days after his burial. Marquez utilizes a lot of Biblical reference in this book.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecause honor was highly valued during that time, I thought that the people would go along acting as if they know nothing of the Vicarios' brothers plot until Santiago gets killed. However, I didn't expect that the people "began to shout at him from every side, and Santiago Nasar went backward and forward several times, baffled by hearing so many voices at the same time" (pg. 136). It's interesting how they all try to help him at once in last minute when they had all time to warn him, but no one tries to warn him before. At this point, they don't regard honor as much, and they seem to care more about Santiago's life. This points out that they didn't warn Santiago beforehand not because they want him to die to preserve honor, but they don't want to be singled out and deal with this alone if they warn Santiago. However, they are willing to warn him as a crowd because they want to be anonymous in this situation. This generalizes to the fact that humans are more open and show more of their internal selves when they are anonymous.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I picked up on quite a bit of religious references and tones made obvious by particular diction and imagery. Cristo Bedoya tells the narrator that on the day of Santiago Nasar's murder, "Of course it wasn't raining.... It was just going on seven and a golden sun was already coming through the windows" (125). The reader knows of the gruesome imminent murder and this positive imagery is surprising because it is not expected. The "golden sun" can be associated with the heavens, which is a rather peaceful image. Continuation with the light imagery is evident in the lines, "A beam of dusty light was coming in through the skylight, and the beautiful woman asleep on her side in the hammock, her bride's hand on her cheek, had an unreal look" (126) and "He saw her in the full light, wearing a dressing gown with golden larks..." (126). The tone here is tranquil and dreamy with descriptive words such as "light" and "golden," again, something that is totally in contrast with the panic and chaos of the town. Polo Carrillo also mentioned how he thought Santiago Nasar's "money made him untouchable" (120) and the word "untouchable" is interesting in the way that it relates to God; no one can physically touch Him. Cristo Bedoya ran into Father Amador in the town, which slightly highlights the religious aspect of the town. Also, the way in which the murder of Santiago Nasar was conducted draws a parallel to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is explained that Santiago Nasar was knifed against the door, similar to how Jesus was nailed to the cross, and a line further illustrating this comparison states, "The knife went through the palm of his right hand..." (138). The author, Marquez, uses these religious allusions to communicate a general message of sacrifice/martyrdom in the face of injustice.
ReplyDeleteI like your connection. I also see the connection of how Jesus and Santiago Nasar were both blamed for something that they didn't do yet they both reacted with an utter calmness to the threats on their lives
DeleteI really like your analysis and I think it brought up good points that I wouldn't have thought of!! I think the heavens and golden light imagery are very significant and I think that the fact that Cristo Bedoya ran into Santiago's mother is another parallell to Jesus's mother, Mary.
DeleteI find it interesting how alcohol and other substances are melded into the broken society. The narrator describes, “ In the squalid wooden office in the town hall, drinking pot coffee laced with cane liquor against the mirages of the heat” (Marquez, 115). The town was initially called an open wound and the investigating magistrate is the one drinking. Alcohol is a primary ingredient in cleaning out open wounds. It is interesting how it is mentioned here because the magistrate, who is supposed to help the town is using it to drown out his own hallucinations. Alcohol is being used to represent both the cleaner and the intoxicant. Marquez has shown that throughout the story, the town has been drunk on something. In chapter 5, the characters are wrought with guilt. the mirages of the heat as mentioned in the quote symbolizes the false hopes that the characters feel as they are trying to come up with excuses. The fact that the magistrate is secretly taking in alcohol himself shows that he has been affected by the town to an extent that he needs alcohol to cleanse himself from the mood of the town.
ReplyDeleteI found your interpretation of the role of alcohol really interesting -- how do you think this relates to the character of Santiago Nasar? If drinking alcohol, or being drunk, is a way of "cleansing," then what does that say about all the other characters who drank extensively? It was also mentioned that the Vicario brothers were very drunk before they committed the murder - maybe that symbolizes the fact that the twins were also trying to escape the reality of their situation.
DeleteTo refer back to my first blog post, my first initial feelings towards Santiago were very negative. When he was murdered, I didn’t really feel that sense of remorse because I thought that he truly had committed this crime against the Vicarios. Although it came into question throughout the rest of the book whether this was a false accusation, we get a clear view on the situation in the last chapter. When reading Chapter 5, my thoughts quickly reversed when Marquez writes, “the victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence”(118). This made me question whether or not Angela was ever telling the truth. We can see that this confusion in the quote, “Nevertheless, what had alarmed him most at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong”(117). Given that these were the thoughts of the Judge, and the quotes following about Angela not giving the specifics of the situation, made me come to the conclusion that Angela was lying about this to get out of the marriage to Bayardo. When I realized this, my thoughts towards Santiago and Angela were completely transposed and I soon realized that Angela was the sole cause of Santiago’s death. However this led me to the question of why she would admit to something that never happened especially if she knew that it would ruin her reputation? If somebody would like to add on to this or have any opposing viewpoints please share!
ReplyDeleteI like your point on how the reader's viewpoint, and your viewpoint, of Santiago changes throughout the book. The reason this interests me is because my view of Angela did not change throughout the book even though we learn that she falsely accuses Santiago of taking her virginity and eventually causes him to be killed. Despite her large part in the murder, I still only feel bad for her for the fact that she was not able to marry Bayardo. An answer to your question: I think Angela was in a situation where she was forced to give someone's name and like the narrator theorized, she probably chose Santiago's name it was unlikely that he would be killed and possibly because she didn't know him very well so his murder would not have effected her.
DeleteReading through the final chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, I appreciated the book’s description of the myriad ways guilt over Santiago Nasar’s murder affected the townspeople. As put in the first paragraph of the chapter, “…none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). With this line, the narrator of the story makes not only a comment on the mental state of the town, but also on the way humans deal with guilt. The townspeople, of course, share a profound sense of guilt over the death of Santiago—each one, including the narrator, believes that they could have done something to stop his murder. This guilt manifests itself in the villagers’ preoccupation with their fate: the villagers believe that they will all be punished by God for what they (didn’t) do, and, ironically enough, guilt over someone’s death has caused even more people to stop living their lives in the way that they used to, from Hortensia Baute “[running] out naked in the street” (97) to Aura Villeros needing to use a catheter for the rest of her life. The book is hyperbolic in describing the effects of guilt, but the severity with which guilt affects the townspeople made me think back to the activity we did in class at the start of the unit where we learned about the murder of Kitty Genovese. Many people thought the bystanders in that case, who weren’t charged with any crimes, should have been punished. In this story, the bystanders to a murder were also not punished by formal justice system, but they receive a strong punishment in the form of crippling guilt for doing nothing. By using hyperbole to show how negatively the guilt the villagers experienced affected the villagers, Marquez makes the point that those who fail to respond and help others will suffer a punishment, even if it comes from internal sources as opposed to external ones.
ReplyDeleteI was very intrigued by the final death scene of Santiago Nasar. Even though Santiago gets horribly mutilated, he remains calm and even appears to retain his dignity. In fact, right before he died, he "even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts" (120). I find this highly ironic because here Santiago is having just been previously stabbed numerous times and he's taking care to clean off his guts like it is no big deal. On the other side, Pablo and Pedro Vicario were the ones to kill Santiago, and they end up losing their dignity by being sent to jail and suffering from guilt. I am most surprised at how Santiago reacts to his death. To quote "his [Santiago] back against his mother's door without the slightest resistance, as if he only wanted to help them finish killing him, by his own contribution 'he didn't cry out again...just the opposite: it looked to me as if he was laughing.' " (118). In this quote, it is evident that Santiago admits defeat and his death seems almost noble; like Santiago new he was going to die and resigned himself to that fate, quietly accepting his death. After the Vicario Twins finish, Santiago then proceeds to walk "more than a hundred yards" (119) through the neighbor's house where Argenida Lanao, who watches Santiago observe that he, "walked with his usual good bearing, measuring his steps well, and that his Saracen face with its dashing ringlets was handsomer than ever" (120). I found this part most interesting because even after being brutally stabbed, Santiago manages the strength to walk for a copious amount of time and to others, he still retained his attractiveness. All Santiago wanted to do was return to his house before he dies rather unceremoniously on the floor. Because of this, Santiago seems more honorable than both Pedro and Pablo combined. In the most stereotypical way of saying this, he takes his death 'like a man'. This would be a very honorable way for someone to handle their death, especially for a not so honorable reason. On a side note, I felt that Santiago's death was rather anticlimactic, especially for the huge buildup throughout the entirety of the book. It seemed such a big deal to the town, but Santiago's death was quick in the end. I would still like to analyze more of the final death scene In "Chronicle of a Death Foretold", but overall, I thought this scene was effective in creating a contrast between Santiago and the Twins and proved a reversal of roles between the two characters, creating an ironic effect to the story.
ReplyDelete"'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, 139). This quote left the strongest impression on me -- it finalized, at least for me, the idea that Santiago Nasar was completely innocent of the crime he was murdered for. The combination of beautiful imagery and clean diction in the murder scene really seem to contrast with the brutality of the situation. For example, when Pablo slashed Santiago across the stomach,"Santiago was still... until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, and he fell on his knees" (Marquez, 141). While the intestines aren't exactly an example of magical realism, the lack of blood on the first three stabs of the knife certainly is - demonstrating that there was no honor gained in killing him (we often describe vengeful characters as "out for blood"). Yet, both quotes possess a recurring them of cleanliness that ironically illustrates a quality of purity in Santiago - a quality that was lost in his death.
ReplyDeleteThough Marquez uses irony throughout the entire book, the final pages that describe Santiago Nasar’s death contain some of the strongest examples of irony. Just before the Vicario brothers trap Santiago Nasar, he is accidentally betrayed by his mother, “she was putting up the bar when she heard Santiago Nasar’s shouts and and she heard the terrified pounding at the door” (117). This misfortune is ironic for two reasons. The mother is seen as a guardian figure in society and Santiago’s mother is a fortune teller who supposedly knows everything before anyone else. This irony symbolizes how everyday members of society failed to do their job and protect Santiago similar to how his mother was unable to save him before his death. After the Vicario brothers stabbed him repeatedly, Pedro described Santiago as, “‘it looked to me as if he was laughing’” (118). Santiago may not have actually been laughing Pedro’s perception of Santiago shows his guilt and illustrates Marquez’s point that the Vicario brothers are childish and simple for believing so heavily in honor. Finally,just before his death, Santiago enters his house after after receiving many fatal wounds, “Santiago Nasar walked with his usual good bearing, measuring his steps well, and that his Saracen face with his dashing ringlets was handsomer than ever” (120). Santiago final actions seem strange and utilize an element of magical realism (though everyone is also surprised so there is less realism and more magical) because no one could have walked so normally after the beating Santiago had endured. This imagery and irony illustrates the fact that even after the attack from the Vicario brothers, Santiago maintains his identity, contrasting the earlier description of the autopsy where the body is left unrecognizable. Marquez uses this juxtaposition of the imagery of Santiago’s body and state to put more of the blame of the murder on the town rather than the Vicario twins.
ReplyDeleteThe main part of chapter five was the retelling of Santiago Nasar's death. The first thing that stood out to me was Pedro Vicario saying, "'The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean" (117-188). This was very important because it showed that Santiago was truly innocent. The imagery of Santiago letting "out the moan of a calf" (118) dehumanized him because cows are usually killed for sacrificial purposes and represented how the Vicario brothers killed Santiago in order to regain their sister's honor. Santiago is also said to have gotten a "stab in the back." This represents how, because the townspeople didn't warn Santiago, they aided in his murder. The narrator also mentions the town and how it was "frightened by its own crime." The narrator calls the crime the whole town's because in a way it was the town's fault Santiago died because none of them went and told Santiago directly. When Pedro Vicario tries to end Santiago by stabbing him in the heart, he looks "for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it." Pedro Vicario trying to kill Santiago like a pig dehumanizes Santiago which refers back to how he is just like a sacrificial calf. After the Vicarios are done, they run toward the church and "hot in pursuit was Yamil Shaium with his jaguar gun and some other unarmed Arabs" (119). This whole part is ironic because first of all, after killing someone who is innocent, the Vicario twins run to a church. Second, it is ironic that people go running after the twins after Santiago Nasar is killed. They hadn't tried to help Santiago when he was alive but now they decide to stop the twins. Marquez uses violent imagery and irony when describing Santiago Nasar's death and the reactions of the townspeople.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter five I really noticed how sad Santiago Nasar's death was. The tone and language of the book became very depressing and gruesome. The entire society of the town felt no compassion towards his murder but then later followed with guilt. I came to the realization that the whole community during this time and especially the culture was supposed to be a sense of “community” and “togetherness.” The community was supposed to protect one another but in this book it is the complete opposite when talked about his murder. I think that many of the readers could interpret this in many ways. There obviously is a lesson to be learned here and to look out for others when they are in danger. Majority of the townspeople start to feel grief and guilt from his murder but, “my personal impression is that he died without understanding his death,” (118). This really made me sad because he could have gone the entire day without being treated differently and actually have a sense of why he was being murdered. He said he had no idea why he was murdered and I think Marquez would like to have readers think about the importance of these acts happening in everyday life.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of chapter 5 was to see what really happened to Santiago, although there were many interesting things in this chapter, a thing that was really interesting to me and kind of weird was that after Santiago being stabbed, he was still able to stand up and walk around, with his intestines out of his stomach! After reading this, the imagery of this reminded me of machismo, of all the things that Santiago has done throughout the book, from hunting as a man does, touching women were he is not suppose to, and supposedly deflowering Angela, and then this, standing up after being extremely hurt, this is all the definition of machismo. Although another thing that I found interesting about this situation of Santiago standing up with his intestines out, kind of made me think that this was also magical realism, I don’t believe that a person can stand up and walk to the back door with their intestines out. What do you think, can this also be magical realism?
ReplyDeleteSantiago Nasar’s innocence is emphasized throughout Chapter 5. Although there have been many instances where there is no proof that Santiago deflowered Angela Vicario, Chapter 5 strengthens this idea. Santiago Nasar knew that the town was speculating if Santiago really slept with Angela, “No one knew Bayardo San Roman very well, but Santiago Nasar knew him well enough to know that... he was as subject as anyone else to his native prejudices.” (101). Even though he knew that people were going to kill him because of the uproar that he caused, he didn’t really care what others thought of him, “...when he finally learned at the last moment that the Vicario brothers were waiting for him to kill him, his reaction was... the bewilderment of innocence.” (101). This shows Santiago’s pride. He didn’t escape from the brothers even though he knew that they were targeting him, but instead, he faced them because he knew that he was innocent and didn’t find it necessary to tell others the truth, demonstrating that he really didn’t care about his honor like the rest of the people in the town. Because of his decision, I feel sympathy for Santiago, but at the same time, I wonder why he would die rather than save his honor? Is saving his pride more important than anything else?
ReplyDeleteAnother instance that supports Santiago’s innocence is when he is stabbed by the Vicario brothers. Pedro Vicario, while retelling the event to the narrator says, “The strange thing is that the knife kept coming out clean.” (117). This is also one of many examples of magical realism found in this book. Realistically, a person who is stabbed multiple times will indefinitely have blood spewing out of his body. In Santiago’s case, after he was stabbed three times, still no blood came out, which suggests his purity in the case of not committing the action that others blame him for. Santiago’s purity juxtaposed with the brutality of the killing suggests the lost of his purity due to the murder.
Amongst Santiago's death and his innocence, the reader gets a closer look at Flora Miguel throughout Chapter 5. Marque skillfully utilizes dramatic imagery and harsh diction in order to characterize Flora and her temperamental outburst because of Santiago Nassar's actions. Once she finds out that her soon-to-be husband will be killed, "it occurred to her that they would force Santiago to marry Angela in order to give her back her honor, causing her to weep in her room with rage and put in order the chestful of letters that Nassar sent her from school"(132-133). Angela's actions are key as she doesn't reach out to her fiancé and tell him that he is going to be killed, but she rather takes it upon herself to grieve that he will never be hers again. Marquez states that she 'weeps with rage' and "reminiscing over letters' in order to expose the dramatic nature of her actions with the aid of imagery. She is more upset about the potential of Santiago's forced marriage to Angela rather than the threat that he faces from the Vicario brothers. She experiences paranoia and grief in that order because she is more concerned about the humiliation she will be facing if Santiago marries Angela. She doesn't realize that the threat is more important because she is focused on her own honor and status, which she doesn't want to ruin. As she confronts Santiago, she states: "I hope they kill you"(134). This five word statement completely reveals Flora's real self. Not only does she know that her fiancé will be killed by the twins but she also hopes that they follow through with their plan. The strained diction and short sentence syntax displays emotional detachment, as she isn't thinking of her words and its impact on Nassar. She simply states, in a lethal manner, that she hopes Santiago gets what he deserves: death. Her attitude is reciprocal, as Santiago has put her though hell and back with his alleged sexual affair with Angela. The combination of paranoia and grief from her part goes to show that Flora does care about Santiago, but she also cares about her self enough to be able to drop him if he poses threat to her honor in society.
ReplyDeleteThe most prudent passage of chapter 5 is when Marquez describes the gruesome murder of Santiago Nasar. Many parts of this passage stood out to me. The first three stabs that Pedro and Pablo did were especially intriguing, "I'd given it to him at least three times and there wasn't a drop of blood." (pg. 118) This quote by Pedro Vicarrio is interesting because it can be seen to relate back to the bible, Peter the Decibel lied about Jesus three times and this reflects how Pedro stabs Santiago and the fact that he does not start to bleed, which can make Santiago be seen as holy figure and more than mortal. Another interesting part of chapter 5 is the way the twins felt when stabbing santiago, "I felt the way you do when you're galloping on horseback." (pg118) for such noble and religious man who are killing out of the honor of their family, you would not expect them to feel empowered or a sense of happiness when stabbing Santiago. The morals of the twins are very corrupted as well for the townspeople, what do you think Marquez is trying to portray about the twins and their religious affiliations?
ReplyDeleteI know this has been discussed a couple times, but I wanted to highlight the irony of the importance of religion in this town. Throughout chapter five the diction and imagery used have religious themes and undertones. For example when Santiago is stabbed through the hand it is a parallel to Jesus Christ's crucifixion. However this is not the ironic piece in the story. I think the most ironic part of the chapter was when Cristo Bedoya ran into the priest of the town, Father Amador, who said "he didn't think he could do anything for Santiago Nasar except save his soul." (Page 127 in the green copy). This is ironic because in this town and culture, religion and religious figures are very important and demand a lot of respect (hence all the preparations for the bishop's arrival) so for Father Amador to say he has no power, is ridiculous. He is probably the person with the most influence over the brothers because in their eyes, he is their connection to the spiritual beyond. Father Amador's non-reaction to the cold-blooded murder of Santiago Nasar is another symbol of the corruption of religion in this town. For the overall book, this creates an almost finalized tone of despair. There is no one who wants to take direct action who is in a position of power, and the faith of the brothers has clearly fallen into shambles so much so that they are willing to kill a man for a simple question of honor. The narrator even mentions that one of Flora Miguel's (Santiago's fiance) fears was that he would have to marry Angela in order to restore her honor. This implies that there was another way to restore her honor and Santiago's death was unnecessary. With religious intervention on Father Amador's part (ie counseling the brothers) perhaps Santiago's Nasar's messy death could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteThe story has the motif of sleep throughout all of it that represents death. In the first chapter, Santiago was seen as “being a little sleepy” (2) an hour before he was murdered. Santiago being sleepy was foreshadowing his descent into death. As the Vicario brothers prepared themselves for the slaughter, they looked like “insomniac sleepwalkers” (16), portraying how the death will then haunt them, just as sleep haunts insomniacs. Since the Nahir Miguel ordered the Miguel family to sleep until noon, “That’s why Flora Miguel, who wasn’t that young anymore, was preserved like a rose,” (131). Flora’s preservation as a rose was a connection to embalming, an act of sustaining a corpse, to symbolize that, in spite of Santiago’s death, she is still capable of continuing her life (something she neglects to do).
ReplyDeleteIn the final chapter of the book, it is finally confirmed that Santiago in fact was innocent of his crime. The crime was not a legal crime, but the crime of taking Angela's virginity was a crime against her honor, and her brothers took action into their own hands to restore that. This makes me wonder.. who actually was it that took her virginity? We will never know, there is no way to find out, but it is interesting to think about how they reacted to Santiago's death. Santiago is quoted on saying "I don't understand a God-damned thing" (Marguez 114), and this is not the reaction you would expect from a guilty man when his life is in imminent danger. This language by Santiago displays his innocence, and gives yet another religious reference in this play. Like many others have said, this is another parallel that Santiago has with Jesus. Both died for somebody else. Jesus died on the cross to take away the sins of those who believed in him, and Santiago died for whoever truly took Angela's virginity. Santiago though, did not do this willingly, and like in Jesus' case, the whole town and society is to be blamed.
ReplyDeleteIn the fifth and final chapter, it is shown that the townsfolk saw themselves as simple spectators to the murder of Santiago Nazar rather than players that could have affected the outcome. Years later, they found themselves to have simply been an audience the honor killing. “never managed to explain to himself why he gave in to the impulse to spend two hours at his grandparents' house... waiting for him since dawn to warn him.” (113) This shows that while many people chose to avoid the situation all together, no one truly knew why they were compelled to simply watch. “Everything that happened after that is in the public domain” (129) This word choice of “public domain” gives the idea that the situation is something to be shared. A story to be told to as many people as possible, as if Santiago's death was a plot twist from a TV show that those who bore witness to it got to be the first to find out.
ReplyDeleteThe vivid imagery used to describe the killing of Santiago used in Chapter Five is something that I found very important in the book. I believe Marquez put this vivid imagery and magical realism of the murdering and the intestines of Santiago falling out to portray a tone of the death and an overall more symbolic message. The death of Santiago took a lot of stabbing and was very prolonged. I think the multiple stabs signify all of the people who could of stopped the death yet didn't. Also Santiago was a symbol of the faith and somewhat of purity within the town, ironically, and so this also demonstrates how the town all together (symbolized through the multiple stabbings) is the reason that religion is failing and together as a community they killed the purity and saintly hood. I think that Marquez specifically uses this graphic detail to get the impact of the death to the reader. The death lingered in the town for awhile and so I think that Marquez wants the reader to have that same feeling of the eerie lingering. Also there is a lot of magical realism used within this passage. We see through the prolonged death of Santiago. Marquez uses magical realism in this passage to show how it was a normal day that Santiago died and the fact that people just let it happen and watched. Just like societies see evil happening and corruption but don't do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, Marquez uses symbolism and characterization to emphasize to the reader that it is important to recognize when one's biases allow one to distance oneself from the meanings or moral significance of events – or to invent meaning when there is none. The magistrate, who the narrator described (not disapprovingly) as a “man burning with the fever of literature”, demonstrates both forms of bias (99). Considering the documentary-like cataloging of so many other character names, it is unusual that the narrator claims to have never found the magistrate's name in any records; it is likely that Marquez intentionally made this character something of a blank slate in terms of identity because the reader is intended to identify with the magistrate. The magistrate's social class and level of education may also show Marquez's awareness of his audience, which probably includes a number of people who would consider themselves above the “unsophisticated” town depicted in this book. The psychological distancing and insensitivity of the magistrate toward the trial – which he views as a grand story – criticizes the reader's possibly judgmental attitude toward similar situations in reality. The magistrate, who was “so perplexed by the enigma that fate had touched him with, that he kept calling into lyrical distractions that ran contrary to the rigor of his profession”, is so absurdly emotionless toward his duties that he seems like a foolish noble of myth and legend (as is appropriate for the overall style of magical realism). Overall, Marquez's characterization of the frivolous magistrate creates a emotional impact by forcing the reader to question his or her own attitude toward the concept and execution of justice.
ReplyDeleteIn the fifth chapter, the view points of the townspeople are examined in further depth. The reader learns about many other events that transpire, all of which help show how the townspeople view themselves as spectators of the crime, as if it is entertainment, not murder. In all this, the narrator himself admits blame because he is part of the community. The use of first person journalism combined with fiction is interesting in this aspect because it allows the narrator to be a part of the community, but yet we know very little about the narrator. In fact, we know the least about him out of all the characters. Garcia-Marquez uses this absence of knowledge to create a mood of mystery surrounding the narrator, which could possibly be symbolic of our knowledge about the crime in general. In the end, we know very little about both the narrator and the crime. What do you think, was Garcia-Marquez trying to use our absence of knowledge on the narrator to be/ symbolic of our understanding of this event in general?
ReplyDeleteIn the fifth chapter, the view points of the townspeople are examined in further depth. The reader learns about many other events that transpire, all of which help show how the townspeople view themselves as spectators of the crime, as if it is entertainment, not murder. In all this, the narrator himself admits blame because he is part of the community. The use of first person journalism combined with fiction is interesting in this aspect because it allows the narrator to be a part of the community, but yet we know very little about the narrator. In fact, we know the least about him out of all the characters. Garcia-Marquez uses this absence of knowledge to create a mood of mystery surrounding the narrator, which could possibly be symbolic of our knowledge about the crime in general. In the end, we know very little about both the narrator and the crime. What do you think, was Garcia-Marquez trying to use our absence of knowledge on the narrator to be/ symbolic of our understanding of this event in general?
ReplyDelete