During the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death-Foretold, there was an abundance of situational irony through foreshadowing. After Santiago Nasar wakes up in the morning, he puts on all white attire, similarly to the ones he wore to the wedding the day before. This is situational irony in many ways beginning with the color of his outfit. The color white is often represented as the color of purity and innocence and sometimes known to resemble new beginnings. Due to the fact that Santiago is anticipating an unknown planned death, the new beginnings symbol is interesting. Initially, the reason for his death was because he took the innocence out of Divina Flor before her wedding day. Ironically, this makes Santiago filthy for ruining the necessary purity and innocence of Divina, which is a juxtaposition of what the color white represents as a whole. It is almost as if Santiago is attempting to hide his mistakes and trick people by physically covering his unsanitary decisions. Additionally, what is ironic is the fact that he decided to wear nice wedding clothes on the day of his death. Weddings are also a symbol to the start of a new lifestyle, however Santiago is ending his in the clothes he wore to someone else’s wedding. Another piece of irony is due to the fact that the bishop arrives at the time that the twins, Pablo and Pedro, plan to murder Santiago. A bishop is similar to a high ranking priest and represents the Church he is dedicated to. The bishop’s main duty is to teach faith and the duties of Christianity, which is ironic because a rule that is highly respected in the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”. Thus, the twins and those planning to kill Santiago are breaking a Christian rule to the absolute extreme for deciding to not only kill, but kill in the presence of a bishop in their town.
I really liked your analysis and agree with your main points about the significance and abundance of irony throughout the first chapter and the rest of the novel. Your insights about the color white are logical, but I think another important thing to note is that when one army or side of a battle is ready to give up they will wave their white flag. This will prevent that army from any more casualties or injuries: this did not work so well for Santiago! If this was intended by Marquez it is quite clever, if not its an amazing coincidence that I find quite funny.
“The only thing that interested his mother about the bishop’s arrival, on the other hand, was for her son not to get soaked in the rain. She advised him to take along an umbrella, but he waved good-bye and left the room. Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month” (7).
So far, Chronicles of a Death Foretold has been a bit confusing for me, but there was one thing that I thought was interesting. Because the author is telling the story from many years in the future, he takes events from other people’s memories to create the story. People remember things differently in the book, such as when Santiago’s mother thought that it had been raining, while the cook recalled that it hadn’t rained. The recollections of different inhabitants are seen throughout the book, but this makes me wonder if they are correct. Little differences in a story can make a big difference.
Another thing that interested me about Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s style of writing is that he points out all of the small details, but does not give readers the full picture. He gives the readers small puzzle pieces at a time, so they cannot see the full picture until the last piece of the puzzle is put in. For instance, the author seems to think that is important for readers to know that Santiago wears white clothes on the day he dies, but does not let the readers know why people would kill Santiago. He chooses what the readers are allowed to know, which makes them interested to read more, but also makes them curious. What was the reason for Santiago’s death? How and where does he die? Why doesn’t the town tell Santiago Nasar of the plot to kill him? The readers are forced to keep reading to find out.
Something I found curiosity in throughout the first chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold was the irony found in the weapon imagery. The narrator describes Santiago Nasar to have a gun with him at all times, especially when he slept, a trait inherited by his father. It emphasizes the damage by the types of guns obtained. The variety gives off a sense of intimidation. Marquez writes, “...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-sized saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (6). Here, the use of magical realism of the bullet accentuates the damage generated by a single bullet. In reality, a bullet damages one person, and sometimes only hurts, not kills an individual. Yet here, the mere existence of the the saint is disintegrated along with other collateral damage, I believe the purpose of this is to foreshadow the ripple effect of Nasar’s death. Further down, the narrator says “I returned to this forgotten village, trying to put the broken mirror of memory back together from so many shreds” (6). This symbolizes how the effect on others may be accidental, but inevitably severe. In addition, the damage done on a small wall may be insignificant, but vital into the path created to kill the saint in the end. The narrator continues to endeavor to figure out every factor of the event in order to solve the mystery.
I like how you pointed out the fact that this weapon imagery foreshadows the rapid spread of the murder of Santiago and how this subject was mentioned for years after his death. It indirectly characterizes the curiosity of the citizens of the town and the ability of how stories are able to spread from one person to another in an instant.
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses visual imagery and some not-so-subtle foreshadowing in order to convey the theme that death is inescapable and inevitable. In the very start Marquez describes the main character, Santiago, and his particular circumstances on the day that he is to be killed. Marquez writes: "He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant, he was happy in his dream"(1). The description of the rain falling and the grove that Santiago was passing through is an indicator that this scene, as mentioned, was taking place in a dream. Since this particular scene was in a dream, one may connote this with being asleep or even death - the eternal peaceful sleep. While this may be stretching the depth of this particular instance, it is clear that Marquez is relating at least this, if not more, aspects of this book to the thought of death. How this has do with the inevitability of death you may ask - well, the combination of visual imagery and foreshadowing provides this feeling of inescapability. Marquez writes: "On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on."(1) As the very first sentence - actually within the first 10 words as a matter of fact- it is bluntly stated that the main character was going to die, be killed rather, by some unnamed "they". This direct "spoiler " as some may call it gives the reader less to worry about in terms of suspense, in that the reader already knows that Santiago is going to die, so they should shift their mindset and worry about something else. This is analogous to the case in real life - all people will die, so why worry about it?
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez emphasizes the amount of people who knew about the death of Santiago Nasar. For instance, Divina Flor originally says, “ I didn’t warn him because I thought it was drunkards’ talk” (Marquez 12). This is her first response to the narrator asking her as to why she did not warn Santiago of his foretold death. A short while later, she confesses that “In the depths of her heart she wanted them to kill him” (13). This makes the audience question whether other citizens’ neglect of this knowledge was intended. The first quote makes it appear as though Divina may have not placed a sense of importance on telling Nasar. This may have been due to apathy or optimism that the brothers were truly joking about killing him. At the time, it may have been so outrageous that she believed it was not a plausible action. Another way she may have looked at the situation would be through the lense that this was not her issue and she did not need to step in. It is later known that Divina did not particularly care for Nasar, which may have been a large contributor to her lack of action. To an outsider, this situation seems impossible and it looks as though one single person must have mentioned anything to Nasar or his mother. Therefore, human nature has a tendency to believe that others will take care of issues. However, if everyone believes that someone else will do something, then ultimately no one will do anything.
“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” (53).
In the second chapter of A Death Foretold, we learn the motive for the murder of Santiago Nasar. Angela Vicario is discovered by her new husband that she is not a virgin, which is very socially unacceptable at the time. After she is brought back to her house by her husband and her mother beats her, her brothers force her to tell them who took her virginity. She tells them that it was Santiago Nasar, but it is inferred that he was wrongly killed. In this quote, there are several literary devices used. My interpretation of the metaphor “she looked for it in the shadows” is that Angela is looking for a person to blame in the depths of her mind. Another metaphor is used to compare Angela’s confession to her throwing a dart. The dart reminded me that once she says Santiago Nasar’s name, it is suddenly determined what is going to happen, like when a dart makes it mark and a certain number of points are bound to be given out. The idea of fate is also seen when Marquez writes “whose sentence has always been written”. This makes it seem like it was Santiago Nasar’s fate to die, similar to a sentence given out for a crime. All of the things that go through Angela’s head prove the author’s use of Magical Realism, especially when he talks of other worlds and fate.
Throughout Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there are many situations which excellently display irony. A major example occurs around the fate of Angela Vicario’s marriage. In chapter two, the upbringing of the Vicario daughters is explained, “The girls had been reared to get married... “they're perfect” she was frequently her to say. “Any man will be happy with them because they've been raised to suffer...” (31). Their entire lives, the girls have been taught skills such as embroidery, sewing by machine, washing and ironing. All of their abilities are solely for the purpose of being the ideal wife. Situational irony is exemplified when Angela Vicario is abandoned by her husband for being a “terrible” woman to marry. She has prepared herself to be an amazing wife, but she ironically is seen as someone unworthy of marriage due to her false virginity. Additionally, Bayardo San Roman had specifically stated that his mission was to travel from town to town in search for a perfect wife. He had enough money to woo almost any young woman and the resources to find one, and yet he ended up with a woman who was not a virgin. Another situation which portrayed irony was that of the Vicario twins. Initially, they had both refused to be a part of determining anything in Angela’s marriage. This is seen when they said, “ It looked to us like women problems” (34). Later, they become the main reason as to why this book exists. The brothers decided to step into Angela’s future when their honor was threatened. Their lack of involvement in the beginning is ultimately very ironic as they are the ones who determine that they must kill Santiago Nasar.
Your analysis is very eye opening. I agree, it is ironic how all of the characters end up contradicting themselves as the chronicle progresses. Situational irony can be seen again when Angela writes letters to Bayardo excessively in chapter 4. I assumed the reason that she told him about losing her virginity was because she realized marrying him wasn't the right decision and used it as an excuse to end the marriage because she was still in love with the man she slept with. But, the letter were revealed later on to be written to her ex-husband! This blew my mind completely. Her incentive of telling Bayardo the truth was an act of decency. I feel that although she didn't end up as the "perfect" wife, I admire Angela for her honesty. It makes it easier to forgive her for her past actions. I'm sure Bayardo came to this conclusion as well. He didn't open the letters because he couldn't forgive her, but eventually, he realized that she actually loved him.
One theme that I found very prominent in chapter three in Chronicles of a Death Foretold was honor. The Vicario brothers kill Santiago Nasar because they believe that they are defending their sister’s honor because he supposedly took her virginity. They even say when talking to the priest, “We killed him openly. But we are innocent… It was a matter of honor”(56). It is obvious that the Vicario brothers blame Santiago Nasar for their sister being returned by her husband. What is strange about this is that they believe they are innocent and that they did the right thing. As a reader, I was very confused when the narrator mentioned that the brothers had no remorse for what they did. I do not think that honor is an excuse for killing someone so brutally. It is appalling that a matter of a girl’s virginity can result in death. Is this what was acceptable at the time? Or are the Vicario brothers a special case? Plus, the only evidence they had of the affair between Santiago and Angela’s affair was Angela admitting it. There is an extreme lack of proof and there is a definite possibility that the affair never happened. It seems like Santiago Nasar is a victim who died all because of Angela’s foolish mistakes and lying. She seems to be protecting herself for her own honor and the man who took her virginity. This makes the audience wonder why of all people Angela would blame Santiago for this. Overall, honor does not make it okay to lie and murder someone!
I agree with how honor doesn't justify a crime. How citizens felt that their duty was to committed it, thus making it okay. Something else I found that may have contributed to the lack of remorse in the Vicario brothers when they committed the crime was the praised they got from their peers. Many stated how they would've killed Santiago Nasar anyways, thus making the crime more easily forgivable. Yet, I do believe their was guilt within the two characters and everyone else as time progressed. This event became unforgettable and although their honor was powerful, I believe their guilt overshadowed this in the long run. I'm sure they realized that there were many more alternatives than murder!
Something I found peculiar in Chapter 3 was how the Vicario brothers found it necessary to dehumanize Santiago Nasar in order to accomplish killing him. They used knives that killed animals, not humans. As they sharpen their weapons in the butcher shop, Marques writes, “They protested: ‘When you sacrifice a steer you don’t dare look into its eyes’. One of them told me that he couldn’t eat the flesh of an animal he had butchered. Another said he wouldn’t be capable of sacrificing a cow if he’d known it before, much less if he’d drunk its milk” (52). I personally couldn't imagine the horror of killing any living being. I’m sure the Vicario boys feel the same. The narrator describes how hunters must try not to form personal relationship with the animal in order to avoid emotional pain. They must find pride through either anger or by bettering themselves in mind in order to take authority and complete their kill. I believe this holds truth for the boys as well when it comes to ending Nasar’s life. When they say, “We’re going to kill Santiago Nasar” (52), they needed to vocalize their crime in order to make their thoughts into a reality, making the act forced upon them so they wouldn’t feel like hypocrites later on. It enabled the two to feel reassured as they went back and forth on whether or not they would follow through with murder. Paralleling Nasar with an animal was essential into going forward with their actions, because otherwise, it isn’t humanly possible to end a life with an individual you see as an equal to you.
Immediately after the twins announce that they are going to kill Santiago Nasar, no one seems to take an interest in their proclamation. Marquez writes, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (52). This seems odd that the Vicario brothers would have created a genuine and likable reputation in the past, when compared to their new motives. Shortly after this, Clotilde Armenta is said to have a high regard for them which makes the audience question their change in character. Another aspect of the strange perceptions of the brothers’ desires to kill Nasar occur while Clotilde Armenta tells her husband of the news. Rogelio de la Flor (husband of CLotilde Armenta) assures her that the news is a false rumor by saying, “Don’t be silly... Those two aren’t about to kill anybody, much less someone rich”(55). I found this quote to be quite intriguing as there was an emphasis on the outrageous idea of killing someone rich. The details of being wealthy could have easily been left out and it makes the audience ponder its importance. In this time period or location (which is not explicitly stated), it seems as though money places others in a dramatically higher societal position. The money which Bayardo San Roman had gave him the ability to marry any woman he desired. Throughout the entire play, it becomes obvious that everyone in the town new about Santiago’s death except for him. Whether the citizens felt it was not their place, they didn’t care, or they thought that the brothers would never do such a thing, these ways of thinking all created the same result.
Bayardo San Roman gave off feminine vibe at the beginning of the second chapter. He is characterized similar to a fairy, wearing tight trousers, strange looking, foreign to the people of this town. But later on, the devil inside of him becomes evident. Throughout this chapter, there manifests a clear distinction of gender roles between Roman and Angela. He derived from a wealthy family, seeking the village with the intentions of finding a wife. I found it ironic how he decided to marry Angela Vicario who doesn’t seem to be wealthy at all. Individuals describe him as stuck up, obtaining golden eyes called for fear. Perhaps he married Angela to gain self satisfaction in the dominance he would have over her. The money he has is the explanation to this all. From gifting her a fancy music box, buying off a home, and putting on an extravagant wedding, this man simply buys his ways through life, throwing it all away at the same rate. Nasar however, was not described as wealthy until the end of chapter 3. When Marquez writes, “ like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has already been written.”, Nasar reminds me of Jesus. A figure humble at heart, and innocently killed. The purpose of Roman as a character is to act as a foil to Nasar. It makes me wonder whether or not Nasar was actually guilty of the crime he was accused of because Roman seems like the character who would conceal secrets as big as taking someone’s virginity. Angela may have used Nasar’s name to cover up her shame of not being a virgin. Maybe Roman in actuality got easily tired of her after marriage, accused her, beat her up, and she felt that there was no escape. Because of his dominance, she may have been fearful that he would spread rumors, thus leading her to accept a false accusation herself and spring one upon Nasar as well.
In the second of Chronicle of a Death Foretold I found the irony and the large divide between the expectations of men and women both quite interesting. Firstly, this book, and more specifically this chapter is sprinkled with ironies that can be comical or quite eerie. For example, Marquez writes"" ... an d that day he repeated it to mea as we went into the church. 'I don't want any flowers at my funeral,'"(47). Here Santiago is demonstrating situational irony (when information unknown by the characters is known by the readers and creates an interesting situation.) I found this quote particularly interesting as it foreshadows Santiago's eventual death. Santiago is unaware of his death at this point, however that does not stop Marquez from creating some seemingly impossible coincidences in the form of Santiago's remarks. Secondly, I found the divide between how both gender's are treated to be quite intriguing. While Angela's brothers are out to kill Santiago because he supposedly took her virginity, it is no large deal that Santiago and the narrator are in what could be considered a strip club. This seems to be quite strange - the fact that there is practically no concern over the fact that Santiago has presumably lost his virginity, but there is an extreme outrage over the fact that Angela has lost her's. I feel that these types of divides exist in society today and in most cultures as well. However, this stereotype has started to die as gender equality is starting to prevail. Overall, I see the second chapter as more of an exposition chapter, more so that any of the others.
One thing that stood out to me in the third chapter of Chronicle of A Death Foretold had to do with the title itself. In that the non-chronological telling of the story helps to give the reader a far different perspective than if the story of Santiago's murder had not been foretold and was told like a traditional story. The third chapter starts off by describing the court case wherein the twins are being persecuted for the murder of Santiago mind you that, at this point in the book the killing of Santiago Nassar has not been explicitly described, rather it has only been hinted (strongly) at. This revealing of the fact that the Vicario brothers were caught and convicted adds an interesting twist on the plot of the book. It makes the reader wonder: well, I now know the final verdict on the people that killed Santiago, what is left in this book besides the actual murder? This is why I have such a liking for this book - I really like the non - chronological story telling as it makes the reader think and wonder, as mentioned before, what is next? The non chronological story telling also adds to the sense of magical realism that is present in Chronicle of A Death Foretold, in that it blends the lines between what is actually happening and what the narrator has added in as a part of his own personal accounts on the subject (after all he is the one who actually experienced all of this). The non chronological story line and blended story telling - which is very present in the third chapter is one of the reasons why this book is so interesting and is what adds to the books magical realism.
During Chapter 2, there are many incidents in which Bayardo San Roman tries to bribe Angela Vicario into marrying him. This could be a possible motif throughout the novel; that the rich get what they want just for being rich and therefore having status and power over others. Bayardo has yet to know Angela for very long, and it is mysterious as to how he decides to marry her based on physical attraction alone. Bayardo tries to win Angela over by purchasing all the tickets to a raffle, and delivering the prize to her house, which just so happened to be her birthday. This was a sneaky move for it kept Bayardo in Angela’s mind. Additionally, this was foreshadowing future events (such as the break off of their engagement for a short period of time) and the fact that they will have an unsuccessful relationship which is based off of money and not love and trust. Once again, Bayardo and his bribes occur later on when the engagement is broken off due to the fact that Angela has faced reality in marrying him. But when he discovers she wants a farmhouse that belongs to a widower, Xius, Bayardo is determined to purchase said house in order to win her agreement, especially since the house was not for sale and he had to put in a large amount of money. Once they officially get married, their wedding describes this theme of money and bribery and power due to the fact that they have a very extravagant party.
In Chapter 3 of A Chronicle of Death Foretold, the twins are prevalent. It’s interesting how the Vicario twins are given the benefit of the doubt multiple times when they should not necessarily have. An example of this is when they go to pick out knives and get them sharpened at the meat market. Each character that interacts with both Pedro and Pablo seem to consider that they are not able to do any harm, however that is situational ironic, due to the fact that they are the ones who actually went through and murdered Santiago Nasar in the end. Additionally, there is also verbal irony, because the twins actually state that they are going to kill Santiago Nasar, but everyone assumes they are good kids and will do no harm, or that they are too drunk to be fully aware of the situation they are “making up”. This describes the other characters’ personalities in the story due to the fact that no one seems to do anything about the situation besides the person who reported them to the police. It is ironic that leaving them to be drunk, they would be considered fine, even though the town was just visited from a bishop. Additionally, they were even given more alcohol in order to “prevent” a murder, but if anything that made the situation worse. Even the Colonel considers Pablo and Pedro to be bluffing and does not take the whole situation seriously because the boys still had access to other knives and were able to get more sharpened even after their first pairs were taken away.
*Late because of Absence* In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, many things are announced, and just an equal amount of things are left uncertain. The story open with the confirmation that one character is going to die. Marquez writes, “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five thirty in the morning to wait the boat the bishop was coming gone” (1). While this first line sets the plot up for the entire book, it also raises question. The audience does not know who “they” are, and it sets up suspense in the novel. The chapter continues and numerous characters are reported by the narrator being asked about the day Santiago died, and most of the answers included observations about nature. There is ambiguity of the day and what actually occurred the day he died. Marquez included many details about the weather, and dream, and the color of his clothes, but every description in the book seems frazzled and incomplete. They all also seem to be intently focused on the death itself that they can’t remember any details of the day. Due to this, the narrator seems focused on finding the specifics of the day rather than asking questions that have any real importance. The significance of this is left rather unclear and confusing, assuming that the continuous weather questions do have symbolic significance. However, the uncertainty is an accurate representation of the difficulties of remember events as they were experienced.
“The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls were brought up to be married. They knew how to do screen embroidery, sew by machine, weave bone lace, wash and iron, make artificial flowers and fancy candy, and write engagement announcements… my mother thought there were no better-reared daughters. 'They're perfect,' she was frequently heard to say. 'Any man will be happy with them because they've been raised to suffer’” (31)
In Colombian culture, women had little freedom for themselves. Gender roles were weighted heavily towards male dominance. Women were grown pup to be housewives. Doing the dishes, cooking, cleaning, sewing, weaving and washing and ironing were all supposed to be apart of daily life. Angela Vicario was no exception. Her life is written out for her from the day she was born, and she is expected to marry and make a family. Her beauty is measured by her ability to make a home for herself, her husband and their family. Women are expected to withstand suffrage due to most marriages being for wealth instead of love. And like Angela, most women to do get a say in who courts them. Marquez writes, “It was Angela Vicario who didn’t want to marry him. ‘He seemed too much of a man for me’” (34). It was in Colombian culture for a man to express great effort to woo and cherish women with expensive gifts in order to show their capability to support their wives. While Angela made clear that she wasn’t inclined to have a relationship with Bayardo, her voice was quieted and the wedding commenced. At this point in the novel, there is more backstory to the reasons Santiago is being targeted, and the complexity of Angela and Bayardo’s character are revealed. Due to the large double standards of women, once Angela secret of being a virgin is announced, she is immediately shunned and shamed of what she has done, and because she blamed it on Santiago, he is now guilty of corrupting Bayardo’s wife. The ritual of marrying a virgin and a husband being the only one supposed to ever be with their women, Angela’s secret broke all of the cultural rules and walked over Bayardo’s masculinity. This becomes the sole reason, and apparently only viable option in a situation like this, for the brothers to kill Santiago.
Do you think if Santiago was rich, the fact that she lost her virginity wouldn't be as big of a deal as it is because he is poor? What if the scenario was switched around and Bayard was the poor one without status and money? Considering the novel is written with a heavy background on Columbian culture, do you think some of the dialogue in the novel should be written in Spanish? Would it enhance the traditional stereotypes even farther?
In the third chapter, the twin brothers begin their hunt for Santiago. The roam around public places looking for him, but fail to find him. Word gets out ot many people that Santiago is going to be murders, but nobody pays much attention. At the end of the chapter, Marquez writes, "'The truth is I didn't know what to do,' he told me. 'My first thought was that it wasn't any business of mine but something for the civil authorities, but then I made up my mind to say something in passing to Placida Linero.' Yet when he crossed the square, he'd forgotten completely. 'You have to understand,' he told me, "that the bishop was coming that day'" (70). Father Amador is talking to the narrator in this quote, and he is an example of several authority figures that had the power to stop the brothers and never did. In this case, Father Amador blames it on the bishop coming, however in reality, he did not take the threat seriously. This bring the question the effect of a bystander, and whether action is not taken due to apathy or optimism. Of the people who heard that the brothers were going to murder Santiago, some refused to believe it was true. They put faith into the goodness of the twins and didn’t bother to report the crime because they did not feel it was viable. Another example was when the butchers were questioned. Marquez says, “Their reputation as good people was so well founded that no one paid any attention to them. ‘We thought it was drunkards’ baloney’” (52). Due to the brother’s golden reputation, nobody would believe the threats, and went along with their day. This goes to question the power of authority in this town. Common people fail to arise above cultural prejudice and suspect that evil can come out of anyone, and cannot overcome their own personal weaknesses of taking the effort of standing up for someone.
In chapter 4, Marquez describes Santiago Nasar’s body after his death. It is described in abhorrent detail and repeatedly displayed for the audience. An example of the vivid imagery while describing the body includes, “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 audience experiences a queasy sensation as they read through pages of unpleasant descriptions. This detail emphasizes how disgusting the whole event was, from the people who never bothered to tell Santiago of his fate, to those who encouraged the double standards for women in their society. If women weren’t expected to be raised for solely getting married off (and being a virgin), the shame of Angela Vicario and her family would have never existed. Santiago’s brutal and cruel death is exaggerated through the mistreatment of his corpse. The amateur autopsy represents how little everyone seemed to care for him. Another aspect which was extremely prevalent in this chapter was how the smell of Santiago’s dead body seemed to haunt every person in the town. The narrator first introduces the malodor when he says, “In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness”(73). The odor may also symbolize the entirety of the unfortunate event which recently occurred. The town realizes the mistakes which they have made, and are haunted by his lingering death.
The beginning of chapter 5 proceeds to describe the impact of Santiago’s death on the entire society. This seems quite ironic as the members of this community were not particularly interested in getting involved in the first place. 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 accounts are the reports of multiple people in the town, and the impact of Santiago’s death on their lives. The lack of action which these people, and the rest of their society, ultimately haunted them. If only one person hadn’t assumed that Santiago knew he was being pursued, and actually found him in time, this crisis could have been avoided. Marquez’s audience experiences confusion, guilt, and sadness through the impacts of his death. When people first found out about the Vicario brothers’ plot, no one believed it to be important. Later, it was said that, “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 a part of this fiasco and contribute their input to the authorities. When humans perceive a situation as unimportant to their own life, they do not find the energy to look out for others. However, when something directly affects one, they find the time to place the utmost importance on it.
Something that I found particularly interesting about the fifth chapter of Chronicle of A Death Foretold was the fact that Gabriel Garcia Marquez does not reveal the true identity of the person that took the virginity of Angela. The narrator continues to insist that Santiago is innocent of the crimes that he was murdered for (taking the virginity of Angela Vicario) - he talks about how no one in the town could talk about anything other than the murder of Santiago for quite a while. Overall he focuses on the murder of Santiago, however he never states who the true culprit was. I find his focus on the talk of the murder fascinating as well, because so many people seem to be very concerned with the fact that Santiago has been killed, however no one cared enough to actually prevent the murder. This says a lot about human nature in that it shows that most, if not all people are inherently lazy - so much so that they would not even speak up to prevent a murder. This is what my group focused on for the group project. We came to the conclusion that most people are inherently lazy - rather than things happening because of fate. It is important to note, however that most people believe that things will happen regardless of whatever actions that they take (that fate will take its course) and as a result will take no actions because of this. This is the interesting moral dilemma that occurs in Chronicle of A Death Foretold.
Something that I was at first very confused about, but later came to like was the lack of chronology in Chronicle of A Death Foretold. This is ironic, yet predictable in that this sort of storytelling has been present the whole book. It is ironic in that the title of the book has the word chronicle in it, showing that it is not expected to be chronological. The non-chronological story telling also allows for the narrator and the author to give all of the details surrounding the murder in order for the reader to be able understand all aspects of the murder. This non-chronological story telling is especially present in chapter 4. The first bit of non-chronological story telling occurs when the narrator starts to discuss what becomes of the rest of the characters in the story. This is particularly odd in that this part of the story or movie is usually left to the end - but knowing Gabriel Garcia Marquez and what has already occurred in this book so far it is not odd that he is doing this with ~40 pages left in the book. The lack of chronology can be confusing to some readers as it is contrary to tell stories in a different order from which they happen in reality. Originally I did not like this form of story telling in particular, however after reading the book I can see that in some instances telling the events of the story in an order in which they did not occur can be beneficial to the themes of the story and can also enhance the reader's understanding of the book.
“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 foretold… When the magistrate asked her with his oblique style if she knew who the decedent was, she answered him impassively, “he was my perpetrator.” That’s the way she swears in the brief, but with no further precision of either how or where” (117).
There were a few things in Chapter 5 that were interesting to me involving the court case of Santiago Nasar’s murder. First, there is the fact that there are so many circumstances that lead to Santiago’s death that are purely coincidental. One of the huge coincidence was that no one in the town told him that people were planning to kill him. When I think about it, it is absolutely crazy that the whole town knew about the Vicario brothers’ plans, but no one warned him. There were people who thought about it or tried, but none of them did it in time. Another that I thought about was that Angela Vicario said Santiago’s name when he may have not been the person that took her virginity. Of all the people in the town, she could have said anyone’s name, yet she chose him. When asked about him, she confirms that Santiago is the one, but does not give any details. Her word is the only thing that the judge has for what happened. This makes it hard for the judge to prove the reasoning for Santiago’s death. This makes the readers think that Santiago’s fate was to die. That is why the judge is amazed about “how foretold his death is”. The idea of fate adds to the theme of magical realism in the book.
I agree that it was strange how coincidental the circumstances leading up to Santiago's death were. I often wonder what point Marquez is trying to make when he wrote the entire town to evade the telling Santiago of his impending death. However, it does play into the theme of fate and how one's life is planned out a certain way and that that in Santiago's case, his death was inevitable that day.
n Chapter 4, Marquez reveals the true ambitions of Angela Vicario. When observing the initial relationship between Bayardo and Angela, it seems as though neither characters are compassionate about each other. She marries for the sake of societal expectations of women, while Bayardo marries for personal pleasure, not love. At least, that’s what I assumed. The narrator characterizes the widow twenty three years later as a woman half in mourning. He continues by describing her actions of compassion and guilt through the endless number of letter she writes to her lover. This was very confusing to me. Personally, I thought she was writing them to her supposed “lover” whom she lost her virginity to, but at the end of the chapter, Marquez uses situational irony to show that she was writing them to her ex-husband, Bayardo. I found this intriguing, how the author misleaded reading into thinking Angela had feelings for the man she slept with first, but in fact cared about her husband all along. This can also be seen when he describes the beating. Angela claims, “ I wasn’t crying because of the blows or anything that had happened… I was crying because of him.” (91). Here, we see that she experiences an immense amount of guilt for the sin she committed, and despite the bag that her mother gave her that could deceive him of a loss in virginity, Angela decided to be honest because she loved Bayardo.
I agree that it was surprising to find that Angela actually cared for Bayardo. Even in Chapter 2 she says that she did not like Bayardo when she first met him because he was showing off his wealth. She only marries him in the first place because her family likes him so much. One thing that I disagreed with was that Marquez misleaded the audience. I thought that it was Bayardo that she was writing the letters to from the beginning. I don’t know if it is because I have already read the book, but I never thought that it was her secret lover. When she says that when she was beaten and thinking about “him”, I assume that it is Bayardo because she feels bad that she ruined their relationship.
“For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman. They took it for granted that the other actors in the tragedy had been fulfilling with dignity, and even with a certain grandeur, their part of the destiny that life had assigned them” (96).
In the aftermath of the murder, the public thought that there was only one person who was harmed the most. It was strange to me that this person was Bayardo San Roman, even if he did lose his wife. Santiago was the victim in the murder if I am remembering correctly, so shouldn’t he be the primary victim in the tragedy? Out of all the people who were hurt in this book, the town thought that Bayardo was the true victim. There were a number of people who were victims and I could argue that Angela Vicario is a victim as well. She was shamed just because her virginity was taken, when a man wouldn’t have gone through the same thing. On top of her reputation being destroyed and being returned to her family by her husband, she is beaten by her own mother. But of course, Bayardo is a primary victim because he doesn’t have a wife. Also, in this quote the author uses the metaphor comparing the people in the story to actors. This makes it seem like everyone in the story had a role that they were to perform and a predetermined destiny. The narrator relates this to show that the others who were affected by the murder were probably grieving better than Bayardo San Roman. It seems as though he was unable to accept his fate. The book says that he “lost everything”, which is partially true because he went through so much to get Angela to marry him. Now, he has to abandon this house they were supposed to live in and the life they could have had.
This blog is an accurate representation of the confusion that I felt as well. What I really stood out about this to me was the fact that nearly everyone must've believed that Santiago had taken Angela's virginity. In the book, however, this idea is brought up as an unlikely truth as a result of the narrator's disbelief of Angela's claim. I also agree that Angela lost the most of all the characters because in a society where honor comes first, getting married after you've loss your virginity and then being returned to your family seems incredibly humiliating.
It’s ironic how Cristo Bedoya continually strives to prevent Santiago’s murder, but the end result leaded to death no matter what due to fate. Since everyone in the society assumed that Nasar knew he was going to get murdered, none of them took initiative oftelling him, except for Cristo. Throughout chapter 5, the narrator introduced the danger that comes alongside assumptions. Similar to Victoria Guzman, many individuals were naive about others. The author writes, “There poor boys won’t kill anybody”, she said. “They’ve been drinking since Saturday” Cristo Bedoya said. “That’s just it,” she replies. “There’s no drunk in the world who’ll eat his own crap” (105). In every society, assumptions leads to gossip, unnecessary confusion, and drama. It is natural for humans to look out for the best in everyone, but in this case, Victoria underestimates the power of the Vicario boys. Each person had the choice of assuming the best, or the worst in the characters of this society. Victoria assumed the best, while others who didn’t care about Santiago assumed the worst in him, that he took Angela’s virginity and that he deserves death. This poses the question, should man assume the worst or the best in everyone? Which way of living could have prevented the death of Santiago? I feel that the message Marquez endeavors to communicate in this chapter is that assumptions in general will never matter. Fate is predetermined,. The Vicario boys committed themselves into executing Nasar, thus, whether peers looked for the best or worst in them, they would inevitably pursue their actions and the end result would be the same.
I agree with your analysis of the dangers of assuming in society. Do you think that these people always assumed because they had optimism and believed that humans could be good in society? Maybe if someone had tried to talk to the boys in a calm manner, they might have changed their minds about killing Nasar. Although the boys told themselves that they had made a commitment to take back their honor, they continually questioned themselves towards the end. If someone had cared enough to convince them it was wrong, they would have found a way to stop pursuing Nasar.
At the end of chapter four, Marquez describes the relationship between Angela and Bayardo and the significance of their marriage. While Bayardo is away, Angela writes him letters for the seventeen years during his absence. Marquez writes, “‘But it was enough for me to know he was getting them.’ ...The only thing that didn’t occur to her was to give up. Nevertheless, he seemed insensible to her delirium; it was like writing to nobody” (94). It is ironic how, in a way, their marriage seems more desirable to Angela now that Bayardo isn’t present with her. She was greatly against marrying him in the first place, and now that he is gone, she spent over a lifetime writing love letter to him. Marquez is addressing the lack of true love in Colombian marriages, and the appeal of the idea of love. When she says, ‘it was enough for me to know he was getting them’, it suggests that Angela did not care that she was not receiving any response for her husband, but relished in the principle of being a good wife and still giving him love in his absence. Bayardo did not care about the content of the letters either, and this is evident when Marquez writes, “He was carrying a suitcase with clothing in order to stay and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date bundled in colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). Over the course of all the letters Angela sent Bayardo, he did not open one. This signifies his apathy towards what was actually in the letters, and only that Angela had taken the time to send him them. The love between these two has less to do with the connection between the characters and more to do with the concept of their relationship. It is important to recognize that these letters also symbolize the story of Santiago’s death as well. The public saw his death for was it was, but never took the time to figure out the truth behind Angela's affair. Similar to the unopened letters, Bayardo did not take the time to talk with Angela about the details of her affair, the same way he showed disinterest in the details of her letters.
By the end of the novel, not many questions are answered. It is still unknown whether Santiago was the one to take Angela’s virginity and whether or not his death was justified. The town seems to be deeply immersed into the crime as if it were something that had happened to one of their close friends. Marquez writes, “Twelve days after the crime, the investigating magistrate came upon a town that was an open wound” (98). Personifying the community as an ‘open wound’ suggests that they have all made an emotional connection to this and have not healed from the events. It is ironic how Marquez would write these people to be in pain from the traumatic event, when many of them had chance to stop the act but chose not to. As the narrator recounts back to the day of Santiago’s death, he describes the scene. Marquez says, “The people had stationed themselves on the square the way they did on parade days. They all saw him come out, and they all understood that now he knew they were going to kill him, and that he was so confused he couldn't find his way home. They say that someone shouted from a balcony: ‘Not that way, Turk; by the old dock.’ ...They 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” (115). The townspeople treated Santiago’s murder as if it were some sort of entertainment. They all found disbelief in the threats of his impending murder and awaited for it to occur. Any one of them could have saved him that day he walked into the square, but something held them back. It is unclear to me the significance of the apathy of the community in the novel, but it seems to be the only consistent truth this book has. Throughout the book, the narrator tells the cause of each event as it happened for the point of view of different townspeople, however that is all we, the readers, know. It felt expected for the final chapter to reveal the truth about Angela’s lover, but the uncertainty still remains as she again says that it was Santiago. Many parts of this story took shadowed over the main details of the crime itself, and created an ambiguous message to the plot.
During Chapter 4 of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there is a continuation of sexism and being treated differently when one is a male versus being a female. This happens when Gabriel Marquez decides to go in detail into the relationship of Bayardo and Angela more. After Angela had sex with Santiago without being married to him, she was beat by her mother. The whole issue was all her fault, while Bayardo was not blamed for at all. He gets pitied for losing his wife and ending his marriage while Angela is ashamed and is constantly being punished. Angela Vicario even told the narrator, “’It was very easy,’ she told me, ‘because I’d made up my mind to die’ (106). Angela and women in that society were pressure so intensely to remain virgins and to remain pure for their husbands. That societal standard was so extreme that she has been shamed into facing the public and even wanted to end her life. As if the shame was not enough for Angela, her mother continued to beat her, “The blows hurt less because she knew they were for him” (106). For her one mistake, she continued to be punished. With both Santiago and Angela, it is interesting as to why both of their scenarios skipped to the extremes. Santiago was hunted and killed for his mistakes and Angela was continued to resemble someone that her family was very ashamed of.
I agree with your analysis. I found it very interesting that all of the events surrounding Angela's previous affair with Santiago were put into the perspective that Bayardo was the victim during it all. Even Angela's mother found it to be shameful for her own daughter to overlook the societal rules of a woman's virginity. Due to this, it could be said that Santiago's death was an extreme result of the unrealistic social standards set on women, and if they were had been given the same treatment as men in a relationship, all the turmoil may have been avoided.
““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”” (139).
In Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s story Chronicle of a Death Foretold, one item that stood out to me was that despite the fact that the Vicario twins were covered in blood after the killing of Santiago Nasar, the weapons which they used to commit the heinous crime remained clean. Again, I noticed the use of the word clean later on directly after the crime, which reads, “Santiago Nasar was still for an instant, leaning against the door, until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, until he fell on his knees” (141). The definition of viscera, according to Google, is, “the internal organs in the main cavities of the body, especially those in the abdomen, e.g., the intestines”. As this occurred after having his stomach slashed open, it is understandable that Santiago is able to see his own insides, but I found it slightly perplexing at first that Marquez decided to include the descriptive words of clean and blue into that sentence. Of course, since internal organs are supposed to be kept inside the body (thus why they are called internal), it makes since to describe them as clean, but what purpose could Marquez have had in adding in this word in for the description? The definition of the word clean not only includes free from dirt in the physical sense, but also pure. Paired with the symbolic meaning of the fact that Santiago Nasar wore white on the day of his murder (a color that represents purity and innocence), the fact that the weapons used to murder him were free from blood, and hints from earlier on in the story along with the narrator’s own conviction, it could lead to a conclusion that this could possibly symbolically mean that Santiago Nasar was actually innocent in the crime that he was framed for. That, while on the outside others may have believed that he was the one who committed such a great sin by taking Angela Vicario’s virginity, on the inside he was actually ‘clean’ and innocent to that particular crime.
A noticeable factor in Chapter 5 is the fact that Santiago Nasar seems to not know why he is being threatened. Toward the end of the book the narrator states, “Then he asked him outright if he knew that the Vicario brothers were looking for him to kill him. ‘He turned pale and lost control in such a way that it was impossible to think he was pretending’” (135). The narrator seems to believe and mentions repeatedly that Santiago Nasar is innocent in this crime. However, Angela Vicario is certain that he was the one who stole her virginity. Once Santiago finally realizes that he is being searched for to be killed, he states, “’I don’t understand a God-damned thing’ Santiago Nasar said,” (135). At the end of the novel, Santiago Nasar seemed to die without knowing the reason for his own death. However, all the other characters seemed to know, or at least know the rumors that they believed in. In a way, this connects to a theme of society or individuality. Should the bystander stand alone, or just go with what everyone seems to believe, both without deciding to search for the truth themselves? The chapter begins with the sentence, “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else. Our daily conduct, dominated then by so many linear habits, had suddenly begun to spin around a single common anxiety” (113). This statement is mysterious, considering the fact that no one wanted to be involved in this case and warn Santiago in person while the event was occurring. As soon as he was killed, however, was when everyone wanted to discuss how they were involved. Additionally, it connects to how people generally follow the rest of society because it’s easier.
I find this topic of the book quite fascinating, and it is very concerning. The questioning of Santiago being guilty for Angela's lost virginity is a damaging question towards their society. People are often too eager to make assumptions about a topic they truly don't know about. Society has played an extremely large role within this story, and the way it is portrayed as blames it. Without society’s expectations, Angela’s virginity wouldn’t have started this murder and the people wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. It also seems interesting that the people of the town originally wanted nothing to do with helping Santiago, yet after his death they all ran to be a part of the story.
During the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death-Foretold, there was an abundance of situational irony through foreshadowing. After Santiago Nasar wakes up in the morning, he puts on all white attire, similarly to the ones he wore to the wedding the day before. This is situational irony in many ways beginning with the color of his outfit. The color white is often represented as the color of purity and innocence and sometimes known to resemble new beginnings. Due to the fact that Santiago is anticipating an unknown planned death, the new beginnings symbol is interesting. Initially, the reason for his death was because he took the innocence out of Divina Flor before her wedding day. Ironically, this makes Santiago filthy for ruining the necessary purity and innocence of Divina, which is a juxtaposition of what the color white represents as a whole. It is almost as if Santiago is attempting to hide his mistakes and trick people by physically covering his unsanitary decisions. Additionally, what is ironic is the fact that he decided to wear nice wedding clothes on the day of his death. Weddings are also a symbol to the start of a new lifestyle, however Santiago is ending his in the clothes he wore to someone else’s wedding. Another piece of irony is due to the fact that the bishop arrives at the time that the twins, Pablo and Pedro, plan to murder Santiago. A bishop is similar to a high ranking priest and represents the Church he is dedicated to. The bishop’s main duty is to teach faith and the duties of Christianity, which is ironic because a rule that is highly respected in the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”. Thus, the twins and those planning to kill Santiago are breaking a Christian rule to the absolute extreme for deciding to not only kill, but kill in the presence of a bishop in their town.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analysis and agree with your main points about the significance and abundance of irony throughout the first chapter and the rest of the novel. Your insights about the color white are logical, but I think another important thing to note is that when one army or side of a battle is ready to give up they will wave their white flag. This will prevent that army from any more casualties or injuries: this did not work so well for Santiago! If this was intended by Marquez it is quite clever, if not its an amazing coincidence that I find quite funny.
Delete“The only thing that interested his mother about the bishop’s arrival, on the other hand, was for her son not to get soaked in the rain. She advised him to take along an umbrella, but he waved good-bye and left the room. Victoria Guzman, the cook, was sure that it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month” (7).
ReplyDeleteSo far, Chronicles of a Death Foretold has been a bit confusing for me, but there was one thing that I thought was interesting. Because the author is telling the story from many years in the future, he takes events from other people’s memories to create the story. People remember things differently in the book, such as when Santiago’s mother thought that it had been raining, while the cook recalled that it hadn’t rained. The recollections of different inhabitants are seen throughout the book, but this makes me wonder if they are correct. Little differences in a story can make a big difference.
Another thing that interested me about Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s style of writing is that he points out all of the small details, but does not give readers the full picture. He gives the readers small puzzle pieces at a time, so they cannot see the full picture until the last piece of the puzzle is put in. For instance, the author seems to think that is important for readers to know that Santiago wears white clothes on the day he dies, but does not let the readers know why people would kill Santiago. He chooses what the readers are allowed to know, which makes them interested to read more, but also makes them curious. What was the reason for Santiago’s death? How and where does he die? Why doesn’t the town tell Santiago Nasar of the plot to kill him? The readers are forced to keep reading to find out.
Something I found curiosity in throughout the first chapter of Chronicles of a Death Foretold was the irony found in the weapon imagery. The narrator describes Santiago Nasar to have a gun with him at all times, especially when he slept, a trait inherited by his father. It emphasizes the damage by the types of guns obtained. The variety gives off a sense of intimidation. Marquez writes, “...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-sized saint on the main altar of the church on the opposite side of the square to plaster dust” (6). Here, the use of magical realism of the bullet accentuates the damage generated by a single bullet. In reality, a bullet damages one person, and sometimes only hurts, not kills an individual. Yet here, the mere existence of the the saint is disintegrated along with other collateral damage, I believe the purpose of this is to foreshadow the ripple effect of Nasar’s death. Further down, the narrator says “I returned to this forgotten village, trying to put the broken mirror of memory back together from so many shreds” (6). This symbolizes how the effect on others may be accidental, but inevitably severe. In addition, the damage done on a small wall may be insignificant, but vital into the path created to kill the saint in the end. The narrator continues to endeavor to figure out every factor of the event in order to solve the mystery.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out the fact that this weapon imagery foreshadows the rapid spread of the murder of Santiago and how this subject was mentioned for years after his death. It indirectly characterizes the curiosity of the citizens of the town and the ability of how stories are able to spread from one person to another in an instant.
DeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses visual imagery and some not-so-subtle foreshadowing in order to convey the theme that death is inescapable and inevitable. In the very start Marquez describes the main character, Santiago, and his particular circumstances on the day that he is to be killed. Marquez writes: "He'd dreamed he was going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an instant, he was happy in his dream"(1). The description of the rain falling and the grove that Santiago was passing through is an indicator that this scene, as mentioned, was taking place in a dream. Since this particular scene was in a dream, one may connote this with being asleep or even death - the eternal peaceful sleep. While this may be stretching the depth of this particular instance, it is clear that Marquez is relating at least this, if not more, aspects of this book to the thought of death. How this has do with the inevitability of death you may ask - well, the combination of visual imagery and foreshadowing provides this feeling of inescapability. Marquez writes: "On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on."(1) As the very first sentence - actually within the first 10 words as a matter of fact- it is bluntly stated that the main character was going to die, be killed rather, by some unnamed "they". This direct "spoiler " as some may call it gives the reader less to worry about in terms of suspense, in that the reader already knows that Santiago is going to die, so they should shift their mindset and worry about something else. This is analogous to the case in real life - all people will die, so why worry about it?
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez emphasizes the amount of people who knew about the death of Santiago Nasar. For instance, Divina Flor originally says, “ I didn’t warn him because I thought it was drunkards’ talk” (Marquez 12). This is her first response to the narrator asking her as to why she did not warn Santiago of his foretold death. A short while later, she confesses that “In the depths of her heart she wanted them to kill him” (13). This makes the audience question whether other citizens’ neglect of this knowledge was intended. The first quote makes it appear as though Divina may have not placed a sense of importance on telling Nasar. This may have been due to apathy or optimism that the brothers were truly joking about killing him. At the time, it may have been so outrageous that she believed it was not a plausible action. Another way she may have looked at the situation would be through the lense that this was not her issue and she did not need to step in. It is later known that Divina did not particularly care for Nasar, which may have been a large contributor to her lack of action. To an outsider, this situation seems impossible and it looks as though one single person must have mentioned anything to Nasar or his mother. Therefore, human nature has a tendency to believe that others will take care of issues. However, if everyone believes that someone else will do something, then ultimately no one will do anything.
ReplyDelete“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” (53).
ReplyDeleteIn the second chapter of A Death Foretold, we learn the motive for the murder of Santiago Nasar. Angela Vicario is discovered by her new husband that she is not a virgin, which is very socially unacceptable at the time. After she is brought back to her house by her husband and her mother beats her, her brothers force her to tell them who took her virginity. She tells them that it was Santiago Nasar, but it is inferred that he was wrongly killed. In this quote, there are several literary devices used. My interpretation of the metaphor “she looked for it in the shadows” is that Angela is looking for a person to blame in the depths of her mind. Another metaphor is used to compare Angela’s confession to her throwing a dart. The dart reminded me that once she says Santiago Nasar’s name, it is suddenly determined what is going to happen, like when a dart makes it mark and a certain number of points are bound to be given out. The idea of fate is also seen when Marquez writes “whose sentence has always been written”. This makes it seem like it was Santiago Nasar’s fate to die, similar to a sentence given out for a crime. All of the things that go through Angela’s head prove the author’s use of Magical Realism, especially when he talks of other worlds and fate.
Throughout Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there are many situations which excellently display irony. A major example occurs around the fate of Angela Vicario’s marriage. In chapter two, the upbringing of the Vicario daughters is explained, “The girls had been reared to get married... “they're perfect” she was frequently her to say. “Any man will be happy with them because they've been raised to suffer...” (31). Their entire lives, the girls have been taught skills such as embroidery, sewing by machine, washing and ironing. All of their abilities are solely for the purpose of being the ideal wife. Situational irony is exemplified when Angela Vicario is abandoned by her husband for being a “terrible” woman to marry. She has prepared herself to be an amazing wife, but she ironically is seen as someone unworthy of marriage due to her false virginity. Additionally, Bayardo San Roman had specifically stated that his mission was to travel from town to town in search for a perfect wife. He had enough money to woo almost any young woman and the resources to find one, and yet he ended up with a woman who was not a virgin. Another situation which portrayed irony was that of the Vicario twins. Initially, they had both refused to be a part of determining anything in Angela’s marriage. This is seen when they said, “ It looked to us like women problems” (34). Later, they become the main reason as to why this book exists. The brothers decided to step into Angela’s future when their honor was threatened. Their lack of involvement in the beginning is ultimately very ironic as they are the ones who determine that they must kill Santiago Nasar.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is very eye opening. I agree, it is ironic how all of the characters end up contradicting themselves as the chronicle progresses. Situational irony can be seen again when Angela writes letters to Bayardo excessively in chapter 4. I assumed the reason that she told him about losing her virginity was because she realized marrying him wasn't the right decision and used it as an excuse to end the marriage because she was still in love with the man she slept with. But, the letter were revealed later on to be written to her ex-husband! This blew my mind completely. Her incentive of telling Bayardo the truth was an act of decency. I feel that although she didn't end up as the "perfect" wife, I admire Angela for her honesty. It makes it easier to forgive her for her past actions. I'm sure Bayardo came to this conclusion as well. He didn't open the letters because he couldn't forgive her, but eventually, he realized that she actually loved him.
DeleteOne theme that I found very prominent in chapter three in Chronicles of a Death Foretold was honor. The Vicario brothers kill Santiago Nasar because they believe that they are defending their sister’s honor because he supposedly took her virginity. They even say when talking to the priest, “We killed him openly. But we are innocent… It was a matter of honor”(56). It is obvious that the Vicario brothers blame Santiago Nasar for their sister being returned by her husband. What is strange about this is that they believe they are innocent and that they did the right thing. As a reader, I was very confused when the narrator mentioned that the brothers had no remorse for what they did. I do not think that honor is an excuse for killing someone so brutally. It is appalling that a matter of a girl’s virginity can result in death. Is this what was acceptable at the time? Or are the Vicario brothers a special case? Plus, the only evidence they had of the affair between Santiago and Angela’s affair was Angela admitting it. There is an extreme lack of proof and there is a definite possibility that the affair never happened. It seems like Santiago Nasar is a victim who died all because of Angela’s foolish mistakes and lying. She seems to be protecting herself for her own honor and the man who took her virginity. This makes the audience wonder why of all people Angela would blame Santiago for this. Overall, honor does not make it okay to lie and murder someone!
ReplyDeleteI agree with how honor doesn't justify a crime. How citizens felt that their duty was to committed it, thus making it okay. Something else I found that may have contributed to the lack of remorse in the Vicario brothers when they committed the crime was the praised they got from their peers. Many stated how they would've killed Santiago Nasar anyways, thus making the crime more easily forgivable. Yet, I do believe their was guilt within the two characters and everyone else as time progressed. This event became unforgettable and although their honor was powerful, I believe their guilt overshadowed this in the long run. I'm sure they realized that there were many more alternatives than murder!
DeleteSomething I found peculiar in Chapter 3 was how the Vicario brothers found it necessary to dehumanize Santiago Nasar in order to accomplish killing him. They used knives that killed animals, not humans. As they sharpen their weapons in the butcher shop, Marques writes, “They protested: ‘When you sacrifice a steer you don’t dare look into its eyes’. One of them told me that he couldn’t eat the flesh of an animal he had butchered. Another said he wouldn’t be capable of sacrificing a cow if he’d known it before, much less if he’d drunk its milk” (52). I personally couldn't imagine the horror of killing any living being. I’m sure the Vicario boys feel the same. The narrator describes how hunters must try not to form personal relationship with the animal in order to avoid emotional pain. They must find pride through either anger or by bettering themselves in mind in order to take authority and complete their kill. I believe this holds truth for the boys as well when it comes to ending Nasar’s life. When they say, “We’re going to kill Santiago Nasar” (52), they needed to vocalize their crime in order to make their thoughts into a reality, making the act forced upon them so they wouldn’t feel like hypocrites later on. It enabled the two to feel reassured as they went back and forth on whether or not they would follow through with murder. Paralleling Nasar with an animal was essential into going forward with their actions, because otherwise, it isn’t humanly possible to end a life with an individual you see as an equal to you.
ReplyDeleteImmediately after the twins announce that they are going to kill Santiago Nasar, no one seems to take an interest in their proclamation. Marquez writes, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (52). This seems odd that the Vicario brothers would have created a genuine and likable reputation in the past, when compared to their new motives. Shortly after this, Clotilde Armenta is said to have a high regard for them which makes the audience question their change in character. Another aspect of the strange perceptions of the brothers’ desires to kill Nasar occur while Clotilde Armenta tells her husband of the news. Rogelio de la Flor (husband of CLotilde Armenta) assures her that the news is a false rumor by saying, “Don’t be silly... Those two aren’t about to kill anybody, much less someone rich”(55). I found this quote to be quite intriguing as there was an emphasis on the outrageous idea of killing someone rich. The details of being wealthy could have easily been left out and it makes the audience ponder its importance. In this time period or location (which is not explicitly stated), it seems as though money places others in a dramatically higher societal position. The money which Bayardo San Roman had gave him the ability to marry any woman he desired. Throughout the entire play, it becomes obvious that everyone in the town new about Santiago’s death except for him. Whether the citizens felt it was not their place, they didn’t care, or they thought that the brothers would never do such a thing, these ways of thinking all created the same result.
ReplyDeleteBayardo San Roman gave off feminine vibe at the beginning of the second chapter. He is characterized similar to a fairy, wearing tight trousers, strange looking, foreign to the people of this town. But later on, the devil inside of him becomes evident. Throughout this chapter, there manifests a clear distinction of gender roles between Roman and Angela. He derived from a wealthy family, seeking the village with the intentions of finding a wife. I found it ironic how he decided to marry Angela Vicario who doesn’t seem to be wealthy at all. Individuals describe him as stuck up, obtaining golden eyes called for fear. Perhaps he married Angela to gain self satisfaction in the dominance he would have over her. The money he has is the explanation to this all. From gifting her a fancy music box, buying off a home, and putting on an extravagant wedding, this man simply buys his ways through life, throwing it all away at the same rate. Nasar however, was not described as wealthy until the end of chapter 3. When Marquez writes, “ like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has already been written.”, Nasar reminds me of Jesus. A figure humble at heart, and innocently killed. The purpose of Roman as a character is to act as a foil to Nasar. It makes me wonder whether or not Nasar was actually guilty of the crime he was accused of because Roman seems like the character who would conceal secrets as big as taking someone’s virginity. Angela may have used Nasar’s name to cover up her shame of not being a virgin. Maybe Roman in actuality got easily tired of her after marriage, accused her, beat her up, and she felt that there was no escape. Because of his dominance, she may have been fearful that he would spread rumors, thus leading her to accept a false accusation herself and spring one upon Nasar as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the second of Chronicle of a Death Foretold I found the irony and the large divide between the expectations of men and women both quite interesting. Firstly, this book, and more specifically this chapter is sprinkled with ironies that can be comical or quite eerie. For example, Marquez writes"" ... an d that day he repeated it to mea as we went into the church. 'I don't want any flowers at my funeral,'"(47). Here Santiago is demonstrating situational irony (when information unknown by the characters is known by the readers and creates an interesting situation.) I found this quote particularly interesting as it foreshadows Santiago's eventual death. Santiago is unaware of his death at this point, however that does not stop Marquez from creating some seemingly impossible coincidences in the form of Santiago's remarks. Secondly, I found the divide between how both gender's are treated to be quite intriguing. While Angela's brothers are out to kill Santiago because he supposedly took her virginity, it is no large deal that Santiago and the narrator are in what could be considered a strip club. This seems to be quite strange - the fact that there is practically no concern over the fact that Santiago has presumably lost his virginity, but there is an extreme outrage over the fact that Angela has lost her's. I feel that these types of divides exist in society today and in most cultures as well. However, this stereotype has started to die as gender equality is starting to prevail. Overall, I see the second chapter as more of an exposition chapter, more so that any of the others.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out to me in the third chapter of Chronicle of A Death Foretold had to do with the title itself. In that the non-chronological telling of the story helps to give the reader a far different perspective than if the story of Santiago's murder had not been foretold and was told like a traditional story. The third chapter starts off by describing the court case wherein the twins are being persecuted for the murder of Santiago mind you that, at this point in the book the killing of Santiago Nassar has not been explicitly described, rather it has only been hinted (strongly) at. This revealing of the fact that the Vicario brothers were caught and convicted adds an interesting twist on the plot of the book. It makes the reader wonder: well, I now know the final verdict on the people that killed Santiago, what is left in this book besides the actual murder? This is why I have such a liking for this book - I really like the non - chronological story telling as it makes the reader think and wonder, as mentioned before, what is next? The non chronological story telling also adds to the sense of magical realism that is present in Chronicle of A Death Foretold, in that it blends the lines between what is actually happening and what the narrator has added in as a part of his own personal accounts on the subject (after all he is the one who actually experienced all of this). The non chronological story line and blended story telling - which is very present in the third chapter is one of the reasons why this book is so interesting and is what adds to the books magical realism.
ReplyDeleteDuring Chapter 2, there are many incidents in which Bayardo San Roman tries to bribe Angela Vicario into marrying him. This could be a possible motif throughout the novel; that the rich get what they want just for being rich and therefore having status and power over others. Bayardo has yet to know Angela for very long, and it is mysterious as to how he decides to marry her based on physical attraction alone. Bayardo tries to win Angela over by purchasing all the tickets to a raffle, and delivering the prize to her house, which just so happened to be her birthday. This was a sneaky move for it kept Bayardo in Angela’s mind. Additionally, this was foreshadowing future events (such as the break off of their engagement for a short period of time) and the fact that they will have an unsuccessful relationship which is based off of money and not love and trust. Once again, Bayardo and his bribes occur later on when the engagement is broken off due to the fact that Angela has faced reality in marrying him. But when he discovers she wants a farmhouse that belongs to a widower, Xius, Bayardo is determined to purchase said house in order to win her agreement, especially since the house was not for sale and he had to put in a large amount of money. Once they officially get married, their wedding describes this theme of money and bribery and power due to the fact that they have a very extravagant party.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 3 of A Chronicle of Death Foretold, the twins are prevalent. It’s interesting how the Vicario twins are given the benefit of the doubt multiple times when they should not necessarily have. An example of this is when they go to pick out knives and get them sharpened at the meat market. Each character that interacts with both Pedro and Pablo seem to consider that they are not able to do any harm, however that is situational ironic, due to the fact that they are the ones who actually went through and murdered Santiago Nasar in the end. Additionally, there is also verbal irony, because the twins actually state that they are going to kill Santiago Nasar, but everyone assumes they are good kids and will do no harm, or that they are too drunk to be fully aware of the situation they are “making up”. This describes the other characters’ personalities in the story due to the fact that no one seems to do anything about the situation besides the person who reported them to the police. It is ironic that leaving them to be drunk, they would be considered fine, even though the town was just visited from a bishop. Additionally, they were even given more alcohol in order to “prevent” a murder, but if anything that made the situation worse. Even the Colonel considers Pablo and Pedro to be bluffing and does not take the whole situation seriously because the boys still had access to other knives and were able to get more sharpened even after their first pairs were taken away.
ReplyDelete*Late because of Absence*
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, many things are announced, and just an equal amount of things are left uncertain. The story open with the confirmation that one character is going to die. Marquez writes, “On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five thirty in the morning to wait the boat the bishop was coming gone” (1). While this first line sets the plot up for the entire book, it also raises question. The audience does not know who “they” are, and it sets up suspense in the novel. The chapter continues and numerous characters are reported by the narrator being asked about the day Santiago died, and most of the answers included observations about nature. There is ambiguity of the day and what actually occurred the day he died. Marquez included many details about the weather, and dream, and the color of his clothes, but every description in the book seems frazzled and incomplete. They all also seem to be intently focused on the death itself that they can’t remember any details of the day. Due to this, the narrator seems focused on finding the specifics of the day rather than asking questions that have any real importance. The significance of this is left rather unclear and confusing, assuming that the continuous weather questions do have symbolic significance. However, the uncertainty is an accurate representation of the difficulties of remember events as they were experienced.
“The brothers were brought up to be men. The girls were brought up to be married. They knew how to do screen embroidery, sew by machine, weave bone lace, wash and iron, make artificial flowers and fancy candy, and write engagement announcements… my mother thought there were no better-reared daughters. 'They're perfect,' she was frequently heard to say. 'Any man will be happy with them because they've been raised to suffer’” (31)
ReplyDeleteIn Colombian culture, women had little freedom for themselves. Gender roles were weighted heavily towards male dominance. Women were grown pup to be housewives. Doing the dishes, cooking, cleaning, sewing, weaving and washing and ironing were all supposed to be apart of daily life. Angela Vicario was no exception. Her life is written out for her from the day she was born, and she is expected to marry and make a family. Her beauty is measured by her ability to make a home for herself, her husband and their family. Women are expected to withstand suffrage due to most marriages being for wealth instead of love. And like Angela, most women to do get a say in who courts them. Marquez writes, “It was Angela Vicario who didn’t want to marry him. ‘He seemed too much of a man for me’” (34). It was in Colombian culture for a man to express great effort to woo and cherish women with expensive gifts in order to show their capability to support their wives. While Angela made clear that she wasn’t inclined to have a relationship with Bayardo, her voice was quieted and the wedding commenced. At this point in the novel, there is more backstory to the reasons Santiago is being targeted, and the complexity of Angela and Bayardo’s character are revealed. Due to the large double standards of women, once Angela secret of being a virgin is announced, she is immediately shunned and shamed of what she has done, and because she blamed it on Santiago, he is now guilty of corrupting Bayardo’s wife. The ritual of marrying a virgin and a husband being the only one supposed to ever be with their women, Angela’s secret broke all of the cultural rules and walked over Bayardo’s masculinity. This becomes the sole reason, and apparently only viable option in a situation like this, for the brothers to kill Santiago.
Do you think if Santiago was rich, the fact that she lost her virginity wouldn't be as big of a deal as it is because he is poor? What if the scenario was switched around and Bayard was the poor one without status and money? Considering the novel is written with a heavy background on Columbian culture, do you think some of the dialogue in the novel should be written in Spanish? Would it enhance the traditional stereotypes even farther?
DeleteIn the third chapter, the twin brothers begin their hunt for Santiago. The roam around public places looking for him, but fail to find him. Word gets out ot many people that Santiago is going to be murders, but nobody pays much attention. At the end of the chapter, Marquez writes, "'The truth is I didn't know what to do,' he told me. 'My first thought was that it wasn't any business of mine but something for the civil authorities, but then I made up my mind to say something in passing to Placida Linero.' Yet when he crossed the square, he'd forgotten completely. 'You have to understand,' he told me, "that the bishop was coming that day'" (70). Father Amador is talking to the narrator in this quote, and he is an example of several authority figures that had the power to stop the brothers and never did. In this case, Father Amador blames it on the bishop coming, however in reality, he did not take the threat seriously. This bring the question the effect of a bystander, and whether action is not taken due to apathy or optimism. Of the people who heard that the brothers were going to murder Santiago, some refused to believe it was true. They put faith into the goodness of the twins and didn’t bother to report the crime because they did not feel it was viable. Another example was when the butchers were questioned. Marquez says, “Their reputation as good people was so well founded that no one paid any attention to them. ‘We thought it was drunkards’ baloney’” (52). Due to the brother’s golden reputation, nobody would believe the threats, and went along with their day. This goes to question the power of authority in this town. Common people fail to arise above cultural prejudice and suspect that evil can come out of anyone, and cannot overcome their own personal weaknesses of taking the effort of standing up for someone.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 4, Marquez describes Santiago Nasar’s body after his death. It is described in abhorrent detail and repeatedly displayed for the audience. An example of the vivid imagery while describing the body includes, “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 audience experiences a queasy sensation as they read through pages of unpleasant descriptions. This detail emphasizes how disgusting the whole event was, from the people who never bothered to tell Santiago of his fate, to those who encouraged the double standards for women in their society. If women weren’t expected to be raised for solely getting married off (and being a virgin), the shame of Angela Vicario and her family would have never existed. Santiago’s brutal and cruel death is exaggerated through the mistreatment of his corpse. The amateur autopsy represents how little everyone seemed to care for him. Another aspect which was extremely prevalent in this chapter was how the smell of Santiago’s dead body seemed to haunt every person in the town. The narrator first introduces the malodor when he says, “In addition, the dogs, aroused by the smell of death, increased the uneasiness”(73). The odor may also symbolize the entirety of the unfortunate event which recently occurred. The town realizes the mistakes which they have made, and are haunted by his lingering death.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of chapter 5 proceeds to describe the impact of Santiago’s death on the entire society. This seems quite ironic as the members of this community were not particularly interested in getting involved in the first place. 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 accounts are the reports of multiple people in the town, and the impact of Santiago’s death on their lives. The lack of action which these people, and the rest of their society, ultimately haunted them. If only one person hadn’t assumed that Santiago knew he was being pursued, and actually found him in time, this crisis could have been avoided. Marquez’s audience experiences confusion, guilt, and sadness through the impacts of his death. When people first found out about the Vicario brothers’ plot, no one believed it to be important. Later, it was said that, “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 a part of this fiasco and contribute their input to the authorities. When humans perceive a situation as unimportant to their own life, they do not find the energy to look out for others. However, when something directly affects one, they find the time to place the utmost importance on it.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I found particularly interesting about the fifth chapter of Chronicle of A Death Foretold was the fact that Gabriel Garcia Marquez does not reveal the true identity of the person that took the virginity of Angela. The narrator continues to insist that Santiago is innocent of the crimes that he was murdered for (taking the virginity of Angela Vicario) - he talks about how no one in the town could talk about anything other than the murder of Santiago for quite a while. Overall he focuses on the murder of Santiago, however he never states who the true culprit was. I find his focus on the talk of the murder fascinating as well, because so many people seem to be very concerned with the fact that Santiago has been killed, however no one cared enough to actually prevent the murder. This says a lot about human nature in that it shows that most, if not all people are inherently lazy - so much so that they would not even speak up to prevent a murder. This is what my group focused on for the group project. We came to the conclusion that most people are inherently lazy - rather than things happening because of fate. It is important to note, however that most people believe that things will happen regardless of whatever actions that they take (that fate will take its course) and as a result will take no actions because of this. This is the interesting moral dilemma that occurs in Chronicle of A Death Foretold.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I was at first very confused about, but later came to like was the lack of chronology in Chronicle of A Death Foretold. This is ironic, yet predictable in that this sort of storytelling has been present the whole book. It is ironic in that the title of the book has the word chronicle in it, showing that it is not expected to be chronological. The non-chronological story telling also allows for the narrator and the author to give all of the details surrounding the murder in order for the reader to be able understand all aspects of the murder. This non-chronological story telling is especially present in chapter 4. The first bit of non-chronological story telling occurs when the narrator starts to discuss what becomes of the rest of the characters in the story. This is particularly odd in that this part of the story or movie is usually left to the end - but knowing Gabriel Garcia Marquez and what has already occurred in this book so far it is not odd that he is doing this with ~40 pages left in the book. The lack of chronology can be confusing to some readers as it is contrary to tell stories in a different order from which they happen in reality. Originally I did not like this form of story telling in particular, however after reading the book I can see that in some instances telling the events of the story in an order in which they did not occur can be beneficial to the themes of the story and can also enhance the reader's understanding of the book.
ReplyDelete“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 foretold… When the magistrate asked her with his oblique style if she knew who the decedent was, she answered him impassively, “he was my perpetrator.” That’s the way she swears in the brief, but with no further precision of either how or where” (117).
ReplyDeleteThere were a few things in Chapter 5 that were interesting to me involving the court case of Santiago Nasar’s murder. First, there is the fact that there are so many circumstances that lead to Santiago’s death that are purely coincidental. One of the huge coincidence was that no one in the town told him that people were planning to kill him. When I think about it, it is absolutely crazy that the whole town knew about the Vicario brothers’ plans, but no one warned him. There were people who thought about it or tried, but none of them did it in time. Another that I thought about was that Angela Vicario said Santiago’s name when he may have not been the person that took her virginity. Of all the people in the town, she could have said anyone’s name, yet she chose him. When asked about him, she confirms that Santiago is the one, but does not give any details. Her word is the only thing that the judge has for what happened. This makes it hard for the judge to prove the reasoning for Santiago’s death. This makes the readers think that Santiago’s fate was to die. That is why the judge is amazed about “how foretold his death is”. The idea of fate adds to the theme of magical realism in the book.
I agree that it was strange how coincidental the circumstances leading up to Santiago's death were. I often wonder what point Marquez is trying to make when he wrote the entire town to evade the telling Santiago of his impending death. However, it does play into the theme of fate and how one's life is planned out a certain way and that that in Santiago's case, his death was inevitable that day.
Deleten Chapter 4, Marquez reveals the true ambitions of Angela Vicario. When observing the initial relationship between Bayardo and Angela, it seems as though neither characters are compassionate about each other. She marries for the sake of societal expectations of women, while Bayardo marries for personal pleasure, not love. At least, that’s what I assumed. The narrator characterizes the widow twenty three years later as a woman half in mourning. He continues by describing her actions of compassion and guilt through the endless number of letter she writes to her lover. This was very confusing to me. Personally, I thought she was writing them to her supposed “lover” whom she lost her virginity to, but at the end of the chapter, Marquez uses situational irony to show that she was writing them to her ex-husband, Bayardo. I found this intriguing, how the author misleaded reading into thinking Angela had feelings for the man she slept with first, but in fact cared about her husband all along. This can also be seen when he describes the beating. Angela claims, “ I wasn’t crying because of the blows or anything that had happened… I was crying because of him.” (91). Here, we see that she experiences an immense amount of guilt for the sin she committed, and despite the bag that her mother gave her that could deceive him of a loss in virginity, Angela decided to be honest because she loved Bayardo.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was surprising to find that Angela actually cared for Bayardo. Even in Chapter 2 she says that she did not like Bayardo when she first met him because he was showing off his wealth. She only marries him in the first place because her family likes him so much. One thing that I disagreed with was that Marquez misleaded the audience. I thought that it was Bayardo that she was writing the letters to from the beginning. I don’t know if it is because I have already read the book, but I never thought that it was her secret lover. When she says that when she was beaten and thinking about “him”, I assume that it is Bayardo because she feels bad that she ruined their relationship.
Delete“For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman. They took it for granted that the other actors in the tragedy had been fulfilling with dignity, and even with a certain grandeur, their part of the destiny that life had assigned them” (96).
ReplyDeleteIn the aftermath of the murder, the public thought that there was only one person who was harmed the most. It was strange to me that this person was Bayardo San Roman, even if he did lose his wife. Santiago was the victim in the murder if I am remembering correctly, so shouldn’t he be the primary victim in the tragedy? Out of all the people who were hurt in this book, the town thought that Bayardo was the true victim. There were a number of people who were victims and I could argue that Angela Vicario is a victim as well. She was shamed just because her virginity was taken, when a man wouldn’t have gone through the same thing. On top of her reputation being destroyed and being returned to her family by her husband, she is beaten by her own mother. But of course, Bayardo is a primary victim because he doesn’t have a wife. Also, in this quote the author uses the metaphor comparing the people in the story to actors. This makes it seem like everyone in the story had a role that they were to perform and a predetermined destiny. The narrator relates this to show that the others who were affected by the murder were probably grieving better than Bayardo San Roman. It seems as though he was unable to accept his fate. The book says that he “lost everything”, which is partially true because he went through so much to get Angela to marry him. Now, he has to abandon this house they were supposed to live in and the life they could have had.
This blog is an accurate representation of the confusion that I felt as well. What I really stood out about this to me was the fact that nearly everyone must've believed that Santiago had taken Angela's virginity. In the book, however, this idea is brought up as an unlikely truth as a result of the narrator's disbelief of Angela's claim. I also agree that Angela lost the most of all the characters because in a society where honor comes first, getting married after you've loss your virginity and then being returned to your family seems incredibly humiliating.
DeleteIt’s ironic how Cristo Bedoya continually strives to prevent Santiago’s murder, but the end result leaded to death no matter what due to fate. Since everyone in the society assumed that Nasar knew he was going to get murdered, none of them took initiative oftelling him, except for Cristo. Throughout chapter 5, the narrator introduced the danger that comes alongside assumptions. Similar to Victoria Guzman, many individuals were naive about others. The author writes,
ReplyDelete“There poor boys won’t kill anybody”, she said.
“They’ve been drinking since Saturday” Cristo Bedoya said.
“That’s just it,” she replies. “There’s no drunk in the world who’ll eat his own crap” (105).
In every society, assumptions leads to gossip, unnecessary confusion, and drama. It is natural for humans to look out for the best in everyone, but in this case, Victoria underestimates the power of the Vicario boys. Each person had the choice of assuming the best, or the worst in the characters of this society. Victoria assumed the best, while others who didn’t care about Santiago assumed the worst in him, that he took Angela’s virginity and that he deserves death. This poses the question, should man assume the worst or the best in everyone? Which way of living could have prevented the death of Santiago? I feel that the message Marquez endeavors to communicate in this chapter is that assumptions in general will never matter. Fate is predetermined,. The Vicario boys committed themselves into executing Nasar, thus, whether peers looked for the best or worst in them, they would inevitably pursue their actions and the end result would be the same.
I agree with your analysis of the dangers of assuming in society. Do you think that these people always assumed because they had optimism and believed that humans could be good in society? Maybe if someone had tried to talk to the boys in a calm manner, they might have changed their minds about killing Nasar. Although the boys told themselves that they had made a commitment to take back their honor, they continually questioned themselves towards the end. If someone had cared enough to convince them it was wrong, they would have found a way to stop pursuing Nasar.
DeleteAt the end of chapter four, Marquez describes the relationship between Angela and Bayardo and the significance of their marriage. While Bayardo is away, Angela writes him letters for the seventeen years during his absence. Marquez writes, “‘But it was enough for me to know he was getting them.’ ...The only thing that didn’t occur to her was to give up. Nevertheless, he seemed insensible to her delirium; it was like writing to nobody” (94). It is ironic how, in a way, their marriage seems more desirable to Angela now that Bayardo isn’t present with her. She was greatly against marrying him in the first place, and now that he is gone, she spent over a lifetime writing love letter to him. Marquez is addressing the lack of true love in Colombian marriages, and the appeal of the idea of love. When she says, ‘it was enough for me to know he was getting them’, it suggests that Angela did not care that she was not receiving any response for her husband, but relished in the principle of being a good wife and still giving him love in his absence. Bayardo did not care about the content of the letters either, and this is evident when Marquez writes, “He was carrying a suitcase with clothing in order to stay and another just like it with almost two thousand letters that she had written him. They were arranged by date bundled in colored ribbons, and they were all unopened” (95). Over the course of all the letters Angela sent Bayardo, he did not open one. This signifies his apathy towards what was actually in the letters, and only that Angela had taken the time to send him them. The love between these two has less to do with the connection between the characters and more to do with the concept of their relationship. It is important to recognize that these letters also symbolize the story of Santiago’s death as well. The public saw his death for was it was, but never took the time to figure out the truth behind Angela's affair. Similar to the unopened letters, Bayardo did not take the time to talk with Angela about the details of her affair, the same way he showed disinterest in the details of her letters.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the novel, not many questions are answered. It is still unknown whether Santiago was the one to take Angela’s virginity and whether or not his death was justified. The town seems to be deeply immersed into the crime as if it were something that had happened to one of their close friends. Marquez writes, “Twelve days after the crime, the investigating magistrate came upon a town that was an open wound” (98). Personifying the community as an ‘open wound’ suggests that they have all made an emotional connection to this and have not healed from the events. It is ironic how Marquez would write these people to be in pain from the traumatic event, when many of them had chance to stop the act but chose not to. As the narrator recounts back to the day of Santiago’s death, he describes the scene. Marquez says, “The people had stationed themselves on the square the way they did on parade days. They all saw him come out, and they all understood that now he knew they were going to kill him, and that he was so confused he couldn't find his way home. They say that someone shouted from a balcony: ‘Not that way, Turk; by the old dock.’ ...They 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” (115). The townspeople treated Santiago’s murder as if it were some sort of entertainment. They all found disbelief in the threats of his impending murder and awaited for it to occur. Any one of them could have saved him that day he walked into the square, but something held them back. It is unclear to me the significance of the apathy of the community in the novel, but it seems to be the only consistent truth this book has. Throughout the book, the narrator tells the cause of each event as it happened for the point of view of different townspeople, however that is all we, the readers, know. It felt expected for the final chapter to reveal the truth about Angela’s lover, but the uncertainty still remains as she again says that it was Santiago. Many parts of this story took shadowed over the main details of the crime itself, and created an ambiguous message to the plot.
ReplyDeleteDuring Chapter 4 of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, there is a continuation of sexism and being treated differently when one is a male versus being a female. This happens when Gabriel Marquez decides to go in detail into the relationship of Bayardo and Angela more. After Angela had sex with Santiago without being married to him, she was beat by her mother. The whole issue was all her fault, while Bayardo was not blamed for at all. He gets pitied for losing his wife and ending his marriage while Angela is ashamed and is constantly being punished. Angela Vicario even told the narrator, “’It was very easy,’ she told me, ‘because I’d made up my mind to die’ (106). Angela and women in that society were pressure so intensely to remain virgins and to remain pure for their husbands. That societal standard was so extreme that she has been shamed into facing the public and even wanted to end her life. As if the shame was not enough for Angela, her mother continued to beat her, “The blows hurt less because she knew they were for him” (106). For her one mistake, she continued to be punished. With both Santiago and Angela, it is interesting as to why both of their scenarios skipped to the extremes. Santiago was hunted and killed for his mistakes and Angela was continued to resemble someone that her family was very ashamed of.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. I found it very interesting that all of the events surrounding Angela's previous affair with Santiago were put into the perspective that Bayardo was the victim during it all. Even Angela's mother found it to be shameful for her own daughter to overlook the societal rules of a woman's virginity. Due to this, it could be said that Santiago's death was an extreme result of the unrealistic social standards set on women, and if they were had been given the same treatment as men in a relationship, all the turmoil may have been avoided.
Delete““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”” (139).
ReplyDeleteIn Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s story Chronicle of a Death Foretold, one item that stood out to me was that despite the fact that the Vicario twins were covered in blood after the killing of Santiago Nasar, the weapons which they used to commit the heinous crime remained clean. Again, I noticed the use of the word clean later on directly after the crime, which reads, “Santiago Nasar was still for an instant, leaning against the door, until he saw his own viscera in the sunlight, clean and blue, until he fell on his knees” (141). The definition of viscera, according to Google, is, “the internal organs in the main cavities of the body, especially those in the abdomen, e.g., the intestines”. As this occurred after having his stomach slashed open, it is understandable that Santiago is able to see his own insides, but I found it slightly perplexing at first that Marquez decided to include the descriptive words of clean and blue into that sentence. Of course, since internal organs are supposed to be kept inside the body (thus why they are called internal), it makes since to describe them as clean, but what purpose could Marquez have had in adding in this word in for the description? The definition of the word clean not only includes free from dirt in the physical sense, but also pure. Paired with the symbolic meaning of the fact that Santiago Nasar wore white on the day of his murder (a color that represents purity and innocence), the fact that the weapons used to murder him were free from blood, and hints from earlier on in the story along with the narrator’s own conviction, it could lead to a conclusion that this could possibly symbolically mean that Santiago Nasar was actually innocent in the crime that he was framed for. That, while on the outside others may have believed that he was the one who committed such a great sin by taking Angela Vicario’s virginity, on the inside he was actually ‘clean’ and innocent to that particular crime.
A noticeable factor in Chapter 5 is the fact that Santiago Nasar seems to not know why he is being threatened. Toward the end of the book the narrator states, “Then he asked him outright if he knew that the Vicario brothers were looking for him to kill him. ‘He turned pale and lost control in such a way that it was impossible to think he was pretending’” (135). The narrator seems to believe and mentions repeatedly that Santiago Nasar is innocent in this crime. However, Angela Vicario is certain that he was the one who stole her virginity. Once Santiago finally realizes that he is being searched for to be killed, he states, “’I don’t understand a God-damned thing’ Santiago Nasar said,” (135). At the end of the novel, Santiago Nasar seemed to die without knowing the reason for his own death. However, all the other characters seemed to know, or at least know the rumors that they believed in. In a way, this connects to a theme of society or individuality. Should the bystander stand alone, or just go with what everyone seems to believe, both without deciding to search for the truth themselves? The chapter begins with the sentence, “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else. Our daily conduct, dominated then by so many linear habits, had suddenly begun to spin around a single common anxiety” (113). This statement is mysterious, considering the fact that no one wanted to be involved in this case and warn Santiago in person while the event was occurring. As soon as he was killed, however, was when everyone wanted to discuss how they were involved. Additionally, it connects to how people generally follow the rest of society because it’s easier.
ReplyDeleteI find this topic of the book quite fascinating, and it is very concerning. The questioning of Santiago being guilty for Angela's lost virginity is a damaging question towards their society. People are often too eager to make assumptions about a topic they truly don't know about. Society has played an extremely large role within this story, and the way it is portrayed as blames it. Without society’s expectations, Angela’s virginity wouldn’t have started this murder and the people wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. It also seems interesting that the people of the town originally wanted nothing to do with helping Santiago, yet after his death they all ran to be a part of the story.
Delete