In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the use of nonchalant language and foreshadow is prevalent throughout chapter one, providing a mysterious and immoral factor to the death of Santiago Nasar. While describing the setting, the unnamed narrator mentions, “...all the many people he ran into after leaving his house at five minutes past six and until he was carved up like a pig an hour later…” (Marquez 4). Stating the fact that he was “carved up like a pig” in a composed manner refers back to the Kitty Genovese Syndrome and the apathy shown for the murder. Even though there were several citizens aware that the death of Santiago was about to take place, many excuses were created, abating the crime that was about to occur. Divina Flor, the cook’s daughter, was continuously sexually harassed by Santiago. Her mother, Victoria Guzman, despised Santiago and his father for seducing her and probably Divina if he had lived longer. On the day of the murder, during breakfast, he furiously grabs her and Victoria quickly reacts and the narrator adds on that she “showed him the bloody knife.” (Marquez 9). Not only does this foreshadow how he is murdered, it also showcases Victoria’s eagerness for his death to occur. It seemed as though the people who were aware did not care enough to warn the family, similar to the Genovese case. The loss of innocence during this day is also an example of situational irony due to the fact that it was also the same day the bishop arrives on the ship, signifying a religious day for the citizens of this small town.
I really enjoyed your analysis regarding the mysterious factor of Santiago Nasar’s death that was similar to the murder of Kitty Genovese: in that no one made any attempt to stop it. Your writing reminded me of an earlier passage in the chapter that read, “Nevertheless, Divina Flor confessed to me on a later visit, after her mother had died, that the latter hadn’t said anything to Santiago Nasar because in the depths of her heart she wanted them to kill him” (Márquez 13). This made me wonder if the majority of the people who knew about the Vicario twins’ plan kept quiet because they also wanted him dead.
In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez constantly inputs different perspectives of multiple people to create an ambiguous and even confusing setting. Although it is fitting to include different perspectives as the narrator is a journalist trying to uncover Nasar’s mysterious murder, the vague and sometimes contradicting recollections make the setting unclear and unknown. For example, on the morning of Nasar’s murder “many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves” (4), “but most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky an the thick smell of still waters” (4). In addition to the opinions of people as a whole, the narrator further provides evidence of both recollections with individual persons. Santiago Nasar’s mother claims that on the day of Nasar’s death, it was raining as she remembers cautioning him to “not get soaked by the rain” and to “take along an umbrella” (8), but immediately after, the narrator writes that Victoria Guzman “was sure it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February” (8). In fact, she said, “The sun warms things up earlier than in August” (9). In contrast to these ambiguous memories, there are details that everyone is sure of such as when everyone “remembered him as being a little sleepy but in a good mood.” Within the major events and details that everyone is sure of, Marquez purposefully weaves in mismatched details to emphasize the unreliability of humans. It becomes apparent as the story progresses that the unreliability of humans was perhaps why Nasar’s murder was not prevented as not a single person finds it important to warn Nasar of his imminent death.
It's interesting that the author includes such contradicting details into the story that really have nothing to do with the main problem at all- the murder of Santiago Nasar. Throughout the book, the narrator seems to recount such unimportant details into the story, such as the different character's memory of the weather, as you say. But what is the purpose of the author choosing to avoid the main conflicts in the story? Perhaps Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose to write in this manner to create a mysterious mood in the novel. The less information that is revealed, the more the reader is intrigued and would like to investigate the mysteries the book has to offer.
In the first chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses visual imagery and the motif of fate to create a dreamlike, surreal mood. The novella opens by discussing Santiago Nasar’s dream about “going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling” (3). Márquez then states, “Nor did Santiago Nasar recognize the omen” (4). Márquez suggests that Nasar’s dreams about trees were ominous, yet never gives a reason why. Even Plácida Linero, a woman known for her skill in interpreting dreams, “hadn’t noticed any ominous augury” in her son’s dreams (4). Márquez offers no explanation of the dream in order to demonstrate that what is going to happen to Santiago Nasar is completely out of the control or understanding of anyone, even a person who employs the already surreal method of interpreting dreams. The visual imagery in Nasar’s dream of “going through a grove of timber trees” is part of a pattern throughout the chapter of describing Nasar’s movement through the scenes that Márquez creates. Márquez describes Nasar’s “fleeting passage through the bedroom” (6), his movement “through the shadowy house with long strides” (13), and how the Vicario twins “followed Santiago Nasar with their eyes as he began to cross the square” (16). The constant description of Nasar’s movement combined with the idea of dreams creates the feeling that Nasar is sleepwalking towards his fate.
When in a difficult position and faced with making a tough decision, people are often advised with the saying, ‘trust your gut’. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the ailing condition of Santiago Nasar to convey a theme of the importance of following your instincts. The conflict begins with Santiago Nasar waking from a dream, yet, “He had slept little and poorly, without getting undressed, and he woke up with a headache…” (Márquez 4). With this, he goes to his mother’s house, and wakes her up, “…trying to find an aspirin in the bathroom medicine cabinet” (Márquez 6). Immediately as the story starts, Santiago Nasar is characterized as somewhat sick and disgruntled; so much so that he must go to his mother’s house for medicine. However, despite not feeling himself, he still leaves his home later to see the bishop. Upon his arrival, a woman remarks that the normally cheerful Santiago Nasar, “’…already looked like a ghost…’” (Márquez 4). And by the end of the chapter, he had been killed by the Vicario twins. Between waking up and going to see the bishop, a span of about one hour, Santiago Nasar had been murdered. Had he trusted his gut when considering the effects of his temporary ailment and stayed home to rest, he could have escaped his untimely demise at the hands of the Vicario twins. Through the ailing condition of Santiago Nasar, Gabriel García Márquez conveys a theme of the importance of following your instincts; as it may be a matter of life or death.
Something that intrigued me in chapter one of a Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was Marquez’s contradictory descriptions of the weather. At first, Marquez says that people recalled that the day had a “radiant morning” (Marquez 4). This however, would is contrasted when he says “Most agreed that the weather was a funeral with a cloudy low sky” (Marquez 4). The use of a metaphor here, describing the weather as a funeral because a funeral is dull and sad, and these adjectives are always used when describing bad weather. I think that Marquez decided to contrast himself here in order to show the reader the enigmatic nature of the crime. Something that came to mind is that maybe the weather reflects who knew that he was going to be murdered. Marquez tells the reader that many people knew that the murder was going to occur, but assumed that he had already been warned. Although it may be a stretch, I think that it’s possible that these are the people that reported that there was bad weather during that day, while the people that were unaware of the impending murder described the day as radiant.
I really like your analysis, it's light and concise :). I also found it interesting that different characters recalled the weather differently. This could be connected to the narrative style of writing the book has been written in. As it shows how people all were affected by their own personal schemas resulting in different descriptions of the day. Your analysis also helped me understand what these different interpretations of the weather could mean and what they symbolize.
In A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the reader immediately learns that Santiago Nasar is going to die and is lured to continue reading to find out how and why this fateful event will occur. In a sort of irony, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is in fact not a chronicle, because the story is not told in a chronological order. The reader is told the events leading up to Santiago Nasar’s death by many points of view, including his killers, the Vicario brothers, but the question of his guilt is left up to the reader. That is my favorite part about the book, the fact the you have to make inferences and decide and form your own opinions about the situation. There is no page number you can reference to completely answer the question of his guilt, you have to choose a side and make a decision for yourself. I believe that your point of view on Santiago’s guilt will change your opinion of the story as a whole. I think that if you think the Vicario brothers are right to kill Santiago, if you let him fill the role of the typical antagonist, you will enjoy the story less. But if the reader chooses to believe that Angela Vicario just says Santiago’s name to save herself, and begins to questions the circumstances surrounding Santiago’s death and why no one stopped the Vicario brothers, one will enjoy the experience more.
Whether conscious action or not, most people behave in such a way that will maintain their respected public image. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the conflict centered on Angela Vicario’s marriage to produce a motif of honor. To begin, on the day of the wedding, Bayardo San Román arrived two hours late, and in that time, Angela Vicario refused to put on her wedding dress. The narrator commented that, “Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown” (Márquez 41). With this, it wasn’t that Angela Vicario would have been emotionally hurt had Bayardo San Román not shown up at their wedding, she didn’t want to marry him in the first place: Angela Vicario was only worried that she would lose her dignity if Bayardo San Román stood her up. Later the same evening, Bayardo San Román learned that Angela Vicario was not a virgin and returned her to her mother, Pura Vicario. Angela Vicario recounts, “’The only thing I can remember is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other…’” (Márquez 46). Her mother’s outburst of anger was not solely a result of Angela Vicario losing her husband; Pura Vicario abused her daughter because she had ruined the reputation of the family. Through the conflict centered on Angela Vicario’s marriage, Gabriel García Márquez produces a motif of honor that enhances the idea that the public opinion is the only opinion that matters.
In the Kitty Genovese Case, 38 people witnessed the violent murder of an innocent woman and didn’t call the police. In a similar situation, more than a dozen people knew of the attempted murder of Santiago Nasar, yet not a single one did anything to stop it. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the characterization of the witnesses of Santiago Nasar’s murder to shine light on an ethical question: do people have the moral obligation to intervene when they see or hear something out of the ordinary? Most people who heard of the twins’ plans first thought of their character, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (Márquez 52). This claim is somewhat relevant as ‘good’ is a relative term, however even so, ‘good’ people don’t attempt murder. With this, even if the Vicario twins really were upstanding people, there is still the consideration of their present condition as many commented that the brothers were drinking and appeared to be confused. The people who assumed the twins had simply partied too hard at the wedding claimed, “’We thought it was drunkards’ baloney’” (Márquez 52). In this case, no one took the brothers seriously, assuming they were talking nonsense because of the alcohol. Yet in both circumstances, not one person acted on the side of caution; to try and save Santiago Nasar even if it turned out that the Vicario twins were lying. Through the characterization of the witnesses of Santiago Nasar’s murder, Gabriel García Márquez hints that people have a moral obligation to intervene when they see or hear something out of the ordinary: that it is better to be safe than sorry.
Gabriel García Márquez uses the motif of wealth in order to characterize Bayardo San Román and Angela Vicario and to discuss the nature of their relationship. Bayardo San Román is described as a somewhat mysterious but charming man who “had turned up” on a boat from some faraway town. He is immediately characterized by his “golden eyes” (25) and the observation that “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold” (27). The association of gold with Román’s character indicates that he may be wealthy and have all the appearances of respectability, but that underneath there exists something sinister. The narrator suggests this when he writes, “his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear” in Luisa Santiaga (28). Márquez contrasts Román’s wealth with Angela Vicario’s “family of scant resources” (30). In addition to being poor in terms of money, Márquez describes Angela as having “penury of spirit,” implying that her lifestyle of poverty sapped her of any richness of character (32). In this way, Márquez identifies Angela and Bayardo by the opposite characteristics of wealth and poverty. Wealth also plays a key role in bringing about their engagement. Bayardo uses his wealth to try to impress Angela by purchasing all the tickets in a raffle. He wins over Angela’s family by showing the wealth and power of his father, and later uses his wealth to buy Angela’s dream home from a widower who insists that it is not for sale. Although Angela “didn’t want to marry him,” her family claimed that “a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny” (34). Márquez used the relationship between Angela and Bayardo to comment that the wealthy are able to take advantage of the poor in a way that is completely accepted by society.
In the town the “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” takes place, honor is pivotal for the families and is seen as a serious matter. There are many indications for why many of the characters’ actions took place, most of them accentuating the idea of saving or conserving one’s reputation, showcasing a theme of honor. Angela, prior to their marriage, did not receive the freedom most women would have today. The narrator explains, “...she’d grown up along with her sisters under the rigor of a mother of iron… Pura Vicario wouldn’t let her go out alone with Bayardo San Roman to see the house where they were going to live, but she and the blind father accompanied her to watch over her honor.” (Marquez 37). In this passage, the narrator is referring to Angela’s family’s strict rules over the daughter’s actions. The parents’ conservatism is to preserve the image of their family by following the tradition of saving oneself until marriage. This can also foreshadow and explains Pura Vicario’s, Angela’s mother, violent response when Bayardo returns Angela back to the family. It is also mentioned that Bayardo was actually two hours late to his own wedding, which quickly starts to worry Angela since she was afraid he would misfortunately alone on the altar in her wedding down. The narrator then brings up an interesting fact, “... the fact that Angela Vicario dared put on the veil and the orange blossoms without being a virgin would be interpreted afterwards as a profanation of the symbols of purity.” (Marquez 41). Prior to this passage, the narrator explains in-depth the idea behind the “stain of honor” (Marquez 38) which was a normal occurrence for newlyweds. Angela had long broken this ritual by losing her virginity and the lie she had created to put the blame on someone else. Acknowledging her sacrilegious actions stresses the gender norms of women remaining pure and preserving innocence.
I completely agree with what you wrote. I think women during this time had little to no freedom or say in what they wanted and Marquez accurately shows this through the actions of the characters in chapter two. As he introduces these characters, he makes a large impact by characterizing Bayardo San Roman the way he did, as this large, wealthy, and intimidating figure. I think this novel, especially this chapter, made readers aware of the great extents that women went through to please a man, as Angela was told multiple ways to fake her virginity in order to please Bayardo and be socially accepted.
Throughout Chapter 3 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the dark language used to describe the Vicario brothers indicate their loss of innocence. After spending three years with the brothers, the prisoners described them and says “they never noticed any indication of remorse in them.” (Marquez 49), signifying their lack of humanity after committing the murder. There was no guilt involved in the crime since they truly believed the death of Santiago Nasar was an act of honor. It is also evident that they did not treat Santiago as a human but rather as an animal (a pig to be specific, which also showcases how he may have been compared to a hog since he was suspected to have taken Angela’s virginity, disrespecting traditions and breaking the theme of honor) in which the narrator often referred to the brothers as slaughterers. Clotilde Armenta illustrates Pedro and Pablo’s physical outlook, “Their shirts were dirty with dried sweat and a one-day beard gave them a backwoods look.” (Marquez 54). Although a subtle detail, this description shows how they have evolved into the dark and scary murderers that they are. It also emphasizes the brothers’ machismo, or strong and aggressive masculine pride prevalent in Latin American cultures, and their eagerness to kill Santiago to preserve the honor of their family. Making the final decision, although faced with inner conflicts due to their counteracting personalities, did not involve their conscience driving them out of this resolution. In fact, this may be a result of all of the pigs they have sacrificed (for religious reasons, I’m guessing). The narrator writes, “...Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised… (Marquez 52), indirectly characterizing their inhumane nature. Prior to this fact, many butchers agreed to have found it difficult to slaughter the animals which proves their innocence was still present. Opposing the butchers, they have completely lost their humanity even before the murder of Santiago took place.
In the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses visual imagery and metaphors to foreshadow Nasar’s death caused by Angela and Bayardo San Roman. When Bayardo is first introduced, he is portrayed as an attractive and admirable man with “the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter” (25). However, the narrator’s mother later admits that she has honestly feared Bayardo and “reminded her of the devil” (28). By relating Bayardo with the devil as a first impression immediately unnerves readers and can expect something ominous. In fact, the devil is quite fitting as it is not only the universal symbol of death, but sin and chaos. The narrator then proceeds to recount the time when Bayardo first sees Angela. Bayardo is half-awake when he sees “Angela Vicario and her mother crossing the square carrying two baskets of artificial flowers … dressed in unforgiving black” (28). Not only are flowers a common item used in funerals, but they are artificial meaning that the flowers have no life. Furthermore, their black clothing, which was a part of their mourning ritual, represents death as Angela’s and Bayardo’s union will inevitably bring the end of Nasar’s life. The narrator further writes about Angela’s close connection with death. The narrator writes, “unlike other girls of the time, who had neglected the cult of death, the four [sisters] were past mistresses in the ancient science of sitting up with the ill, comforting the dying, and enshrouding the dead” (31). Angela Vicario is often associated closely with death, either by her life or her appearance, but it is with these details that Marquez is able to foreshadow Nasar’s death as a result of Angela’s marriage with Bayardo.
In Chapter Three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez portrays honor as an independent force that leads to Santiago Nasar’s death. After the Vicario twins kill Nasar, they rush into the church to admit their crime. Pedro Vicario says, “We killed him openly…but we’re innocent” (49). Pablo Vicario explains that they were innocent “before God and before men” because “it was a matter of honor” (49). The court upheld the verdict that the murder was committed “in legitimate defense of honor” (48). This ruling demonstrates the importance that honor has in the society Nasar describes. Rather than being held in contempt for the brutal public murder, the Vicario twins were acquitted and accepted back into society. No one wanted Santiago Nasar to die, yet no one denounced the people who killed him. Márquez further emphasizes the idea that Nasar’s death was not due to human passion when he writes, “the Vicario brothers…had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him” (49). Even Nasar’s murderers did not want to carry out the deed that “honor” required of them. By emphasizing the impact of the social value of honor, Márquez removes some of the blame from the Vicario twins. In this way, Márquez comments that strict social values can be dangerous.
I found your interpretation of the motive behind Santiago Nasar’s murder very interesting. I agree that the Vicario twins killed him for honor; to retain the family’s reputation. However with that said, I never thought of the fact that the Vicario brothers may not have wanted to carry out the gruesome deed. This idea made me wonder whether or not other people in the community would have gone to the same drastic extreme if they were in a similar position; or if the Vicario twins were simply an anomaly and had no other way to preserve their respect in a society with such strict social values.
I think one of the most prominent themes of chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death foretold was the value of honor and what it meant to the people of the story. Most of the conflicts aroused throughout Chapter 2 brought up the honor of an individual. One clearest example of this was the whole ordeal involving Angela’s virginity. First, it was considered unhonorable for a man to mess up when hiding his snake in the bush, as seen in the quote on page 38: “that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable in doing anything without the woman’s help”. The other questions of honor were for the woman. Simply having your virginity was a topic of honor. If you lost your virginity, you were often rejected by your family: “the only thing that I can remember was is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such a rage that I thought she was going to kill me”. You were even rejected by your spouse, which is clearly seen, as Bayardo San Roman rejects her as a spouse, and outright gives her back to her parents. As we find out in other parts of the book (SPOILER ALERT), Nasar is eventually killed because he disrespected the honor of Angela by taking her virginity. This just shows how much honor was taken seriously and raises the question: does honor excuse the crimes that occur in the book?
In the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez often characterizes the Vicario twins as children to show their human’s true and natural inclination to inhumanity. According to Clotilde Armenta, she claims that “they looked like two children … and the thought frightened her, because she’s always felt that only children are capable of everything” (55). This is fitting because children often do not think of consequences and are blind to reality by their obsession; in this case, the twins are so blinded by their obligation to maintain family honor that nothing, not even morality, is enough to stop them from committing murder. This childish instinct of selfishness and close-mindedness represents the natural human nature capable of such horrors. In fact, after the twins were awaiting trial, “older prisoners remembered them for their good character and sociability, but they never noticed any indication of remorse in them” (49). Their lack of remorse directly correlates to children’s lack of understanding and true emotions that only maturity can achieve. Despite children being the universal symbol of innocence and purity, Marquez uses children to characterize the twins in order to show the true, dark face of children and their capability to commit inhumane actions.
Something that I found interesting in chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold was when Angela doesn’t want to get married. Her mother said to her “Love can be learned too" (Marquez 35). Although we don’t know the time period in which the book is set in, this sentence can give us insight into this issue. A mother telling her child that love can be learned too allows us to infer that it was very important for women to get married in the situation that they were in. I think that this could lead us to two solutions. The first being that the book was set in a time period in which women relied upon men in order to function and to be viewed as normal (similar to ADH). The other situation is that it may be set in a different culture or society in which women are expected to marry men because of their culture. Both situations lead to the same outcome; a society in which women are second class citizens, with limited independence. I think that these inferences are the exact reason that Marquez chose to include this sentence in the book, especially coming from her mother. The reason that it is important coming from her mother is because her mother only wants what’s best for her, and she understands that Angela needs to be married in order to be accepted.
In chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses the weather to further emphasize the mystery surrounding the murder. Colonel Aponte seems to be sure that it was raining on the day, and even gives a specific time, stating “... it was almost 5 oclock and it was beginning to rain” (Márquez 64). Giving a specific time generally gives the notion that an individual is very sure of what they are talking about, because when someone is unsure of events their description is usually very vague. From this we can draw the conclusion that the Colonel was telling the truth about the weather (although I see no reason for anyone to lie about it, everyone seems to genuinely believe that the weather was different, this is just one example). Marquez then furthers the idea of mystery with one of the twin brothers stating that it was a clear night. I think that the reason that Marquez chooses to bring this issue up again is to show the reader that the mystery will not be solved through people’s memories, as everyone seems to have different accounts of what the day was like. The other thing that I though Marquez might have been trying to do was to show the reader that there may be something in common between the people that remember it as a gloomy day, and the people that remember it as a clear day, however I haven’t yet found the connection.
"We'd been together at Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house until after three, when she herself sent the musicians away and turned out the lights in the dancing courtyard so that her pleasurable mulatto girls could get some rest…Maria Alejandrina Cervantes was the most elegant and the most tender woman I have ever known, and the most serviceable in bed, but she was also the strictest. She'd been born and reared here, and here she lived, in a house with open doors, with several rooms for rent and an enormous courtyard for dancing lit by lantern gourds bought in the Chinese bazaars of Paramaribo."
This quote is taken from the middle of Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. I chose this quote because of how ironic it was, and how it was a good example of magical realism in the book. The quote is ironic because Maria is pretty much described as a whore. However, this quote describes her as a wonderful young girl in the town who teaches the men in the art of riding the wild bull. This is especially strange because throughout the rest of the book, one’s sexual honor is taken very seriously, to the point of murder. The magical realism is present through the vivid imagery of the courtyard. It’s described with lantern gourds bought in the Chinese bazaars of Paramaribo." Something usually mundane is described in a highly sophisticated manner, almost making it seem unreal. This quote helped illuminate the magical realism throughout the book, and present the social ideas to the reader
In the second chapter, there is an obvious change in focus. Marquez shows the side of women in the time period as powerless and under the dominance of men. I can connect this to other novels we have read this year including “Taming of the Shrew" and “A Doll’s House”. Reading these pieces of literature coterminously makes me realize the depth of how terrible the situation was for women before modern day. When Angela does not wish to marry Bayardo, her justification is that she is not in love with him. This seems as though it would be a sufficient reason, as today one does not have to marry when they are not in love (in most cases). The response her mother gave her made me think about the situation from two different perspectives, mainly dealing with various cultures I have experienced in my life. She told her, “Love can be learned too"(35). At first glance, this quote made me angry as her mother was not letting her daughter have a choice in the situation. However, I began thinking about arranged marriages and noticed that more often than not, those marriages work out better than meeting someone, falling in love, then proceeding to get married. This is because they learned to love each other. Her mother may know that this is best decision for her daughter. Marquez seems to emphasize this dilemma to show what life was like for women back then, but was the forced marriage necessarily as bad as people think it is?
In the third chapter, the reader is able to see the importance of reputation and honor to the characters. Following Angela Vicario's return home with her husband after him finding out that she is not a virgin, her two brothers, Pablo and Pedro Vicario, decide they will murder the man who took their sister’s virginity. They do this with the motive being their sister’s honor. Marquez writes, “‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we're innocent.’ ‘Perhaps before God,’ said Father Amador. ‘Before God and before men,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor’ (48). Pablo Vicario defends his decision to kill Santiago Nasar by saying it was a matter of honor. This shows how important your reputation was during this time period. It was extremely wrong for a woman to have lost her virginity to someone who was not her husband. Premarital sex was frowned upon in this culture. Angela Vicario’s honor is at risk now that her secret of losing her virginity has been found out. Her husband returning her to her home is embarrassing for her, along with her family. Angela’s brothers think that if they kill Santiago, they will prove a point, and save their sister’s honor.
I agree with your idea that honor was extremely important to Nasar’s society, and that this was one of the motives for the crime. Although the Vicario twins appear to be intent on killing Nasar to reestablish their sister’s honor, they make multiple efforts to convince people to stop them. This demonstrates that the twins do not want to become murderers; their intention is to be prevented from committing the murder while still making a show of fighting for Angela’s honor. The value that society placed on honor made this show necessary.
In the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses a metaphor to show the devastating effects of the human’s propensity to feel apathy and the lack of responsibility. First of all, Nasar could have been saved had he been warned about his death, but not a single person out of the many who knew cared enough to take an extra step to warn him or make sure he was safe leading to his death. Even after he dies, the town seems unsure how to resolve the murder. The mayor is “unexperienced in matters of law … and too conceited to ask anyone who knew where he should begin” (73). The lack of reaction and responsibility is directly reflected by the condition of Nasar’s corpse. As the autopsy was delayed without a freezer to prevent decomposition and took place in a personal open to public view, the body continued to deteriorate from the lack of care it received. At first, “the face had remained intact, with the same expression it wore when he [Nasar] was singing” (74), but “nevertheless, in the afternoon a syrup-colored liquid began to flow from the wounds, drawing flies and purple botch appeared … His face, which had always been easy-going, took on a hostile expression, and his mother covered it with a handkerchief” (74). The narrator often refers to the autopsy process as a “massacre” (76). In fact, the priest said “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (72), and “they gave back a completely different body … the lady-killer face that death had preserved ended having lost its identity” (76). By using more vivid visual imagery of the metaphor, the Marquez clearly shows the direct and destructive consequences of the lack of care and responsibility people have as a society/community.
I agree with your analysis that the autopsy represents the consequences of society’s carelessness. I also think that the autopsy is significant in demonstrating that the society was unfamiliar with dealing with gruesome crimes. It is natural to feel unsure of oneself in out of the ordinary circumstances, and this feeling must only have been exacerbated by the fact that the crime was so repulsive. Márquez suggests that the townspeople chose not to act out of uncertainty and disbelief rather than apathy. The Vicario twins were viewed as very respectable young men, and for this reason few people took them seriously when they announced their plans to murder Nasar. While Nasar’s death can be attributed to human failure, it is not necessarily a failure of apathy but instead one of uncertainty and incorrect decisions.
The perception of smell is very powerful in the sense that it is extremely accurate in reviving past memories. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses olfactory imagery to represent the Vicario twins’ guilt for killing Santiago Nasar and convey a theme regarding the dangers of remorse. Following the tragic murder, everyone was hysterical as the essence of Santiago Nasar was conspicuous. The narrator recounts, “Everything smelled of Santiago Nasar that day. The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell …” (Márquez 78). By this, even though the murder is in the past, the Vicario brothers are forced by their sense of smell to relive the moment in which they killed Santiago Nasar: his scent alone is enough for them to conjure up those memories. However, while most felons would be completely ignorant in prison, the fact that the Vicario twins notice an abstract part of Santiago Nasar that isn’t really there hints at the fact that they hold some guilt for their actions. Later, the Vicario brothers, “…asked for lots of water, laundry soap, and rags, and they washed the brood from their arms and faces, and they also washed their shirts but they couldn’t get any rest” (Márquez 79). With the smell too much to bear, the Vicario brothers attempt to eliminate the aroma of Santiago Nasar, however they are unsuccessful. With this, the dangers of remorse come into play as the Vicario brothers are stressed, anxious and no longer able to sleep: their guilt has now taken a toll on their physical and mental health. Through the use of olfactory imagery as a representation of the Vicario twins’ guilt, Gabriel García Márquez conveys a theme regarding the dangers of remorse and the impact it has on an individual.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes is well known for his theory of human nature, saying that the life of a man is, “…nasty, brutish and short”. In other words, people are naturally inconsiderate and self-centered. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses pretentious diction to hint at the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and give insight on the selfish nature of humans. To begin, when the magistrate arrives to investigate the murder, an immense crowd gathers to testify although they were not asked to do so. The narrator comments that their appearance was due to their eagerness, “…to show off his own important role in the drama” (Márquez 98). The choice of extravagant words in this excerpt like ‘show off’, ‘important role’ and ‘drama’ make it clear that the group did not gather to help convict the men responsible for the murder: they simply wanted to play a part in the grand ordeal for egotistical reasons. In addition, the narrator later shares that Pedro Vicario, “…made the decision to wipe his sister’s honor clean” (Márquez 108). Once again, through words like ‘honor’ and ‘clean’, an affluent tone is set, making Pedro Vicario look excessively vain. However, this emphasizes the true motive of the Vicario brothers, as they only want to kill Santiago Nasar for personal reasons; to get revenge and restore their family reputation. Through the use of pretentious diction, Gabriel García Márquez shines light on the selfish nature of humans; a subject that is prevalent throughout the duration of Chronicle of a Death Foretold.
In Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez describes Angela Vicario’s life after becoming a disgraced bride. The narrator is struck by the way that Angela has recovered from the embarrassment and “ended up understanding her own life” (89). Angela develops a resistance towards her mother, who has “gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life” (89). It is implied that Pura Vicario has sought to hide her daughter from the world because she was never able to forget the shame of her daughter’s disgrace. However, the narrator makes it clear that this shame is unnecessary when he writes that Nasar’s death meant “the seduced sister was in possession of her honor once more” (84). Angela’s mother is destined to live her life in the past, something that Angela realizes when she “saw her as she was: a poor woman devoted to the cult of her defects” (92). After this realization, Angela rejects her mother and the fear of the past that her mother represents. Ironically, Angela discovers “that hate and love are reciprocal passions” and becomes obsessed with Bayardo San Román (93). While Angela appears to have put the horrors of her past behind her, the narrator suggests that “she spoke about her misfortune without any shame in order to cover up the other misfortune, the real one, that was burning in her insides” (91). Angela spends seventeen years of her life writing weekly letters to Bayardo. Angela, like her mother, is living her life in the past. Márquez creates this ironic juxtaposition between Angela’s rejection of and devotion to the past in order to reinforce the idea that the story he chronicles remains present in the lives of everyone involved.
“They left the farmhouse the way it was. My brothers and I would go up to explore it on carousing nights when we were home on vacation, and each time we found fewer things of value in the abandoned rooms… Years later when I came back to search out the last pieces of testimony for this chronicle, not even the embers of Yolanda Xius’s happiness remained. Things had been disappearing little by little, despite Colonel Lazaro Aponte’s determined vigilance… The house began to crumble. The wedding car was falling apart by the door, and finally nothing remained except its weather-rotted carcass. There is a declaration by him in the brief, but it was so short and conventional that it seems to have been put together at the last minute in order to comply with an unavoidable requirement. The only time I tried to talk to him, twenty-three years later, he received me with a certain aggressiveness and refused to supply even the most insignificant fact that might clarify a little his participation in the drama. In any case, not even his family knew much more about him than we did, nor did they have the slightest idea of what he had come to do in a islaid town, with no other apparent aim than to marry a woman he had never seen.” (Marquez 86-87) The significance of the house parallels Bayardo San Roman’s life. The narrator’s choice of words portray a negative diction resembling Bayardo’s depressing state. For example, the house itself was a mystery, similar to the lack of knowledge towards Bayardo’s overall intentions. Many citizens of the town would trespass and explore this abandoned house while finding insignificant to valuable trinkets left by the owner. Objects were being stolen from the house. No matter how many bagatelles people came across to in the house, it was still classified as a wonder. In Bayardo’s case, even his family was not aware of what he was thinking or feeling at all times. People, even the narrator, tried to piece together Bayardo’s purpose in the situation. Everyone was curious about both the house and Bayardo. He was a riddle in human form. The physical state of the house also follow his mental condition which is mostly filled with melancholy. For days after the wedding and the return of Angela to her original family, Bayardo was reaching a state of despair. He settled onto drinking to forget and was apathetic towards making any progress with his life. When the house was left behind, it began to deteriorate from the weather and the amount of trespassing that had occurred over the last several years. No one, except Colonel Lazaro Aponte who failed to do so, took care of the house resulting in an ugly aftermath. Since Bayardo felt as if there was nothing else to live for, he was close to letting his life slip by until the rescue of his family.
Márquez begins the final chapter of his novella with the sentence, “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else” (96). He goes on to describe the lasting impact that the society’s collective failure to stop the murder has had on the individuals involved. The narrator describes the reason that the town spent so much time dwelling on the crime: “none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). While this may seem like Márquez is attributing Nasar’s murder to fate alone, it is more likely that Márquez is describing the collective desire of the townspeople to do so. Unwilling to reconcile themselves with the fact that they could have done something to prevent the crime, many were ready to blame either fate or the idea that “affairs of honor are sacred monopolies” (97). Despite their ability to absolve themselves from blame, many of the townspeople came down with a variety of absurd afflictions after the crime. The narrator enumerates these afflictions: “Hortensia Baute… fell into a penitential crisis, and one day, unable to stand it any longer, she ran out naked into the street… Aura Villeros… suffered a spasm of the bladder when she heard the news and to the day of her death had to use a catheter in order to urinate” (97). Although these people played insignificant roles in the crime, their distress demonstrates that the people of the town felt regret and responsibility for what happened no matter how successful they were at blaming fate. Márquez uses a somewhat humorous and judgmental tone when describing these afflictions to show that the people of the town subconsciously forced themselves to suffer in an effort to atone for the crime that they denied they had ever committed.
I agree with your idea that Marquez seems to make the townspeople hope that Nasar’s death was dictated by fate alone when in reality, the townspeople are not free from blame. By simply not wanting to be involved, they all contributed to Nasar’s death. For example, when Meme Loiza sees Nasar and Beyoda walking down the dock, she says “they were both getting along so contentedly that I gave thanks to God, because I thought the matter has been cleared up” (101) Although Meme knows all about the twins’ plans, she desperately hopes that it’s not true, so when she sees Nasar well and alive, she immediately assumes that there will be no harm. This false assumptions is derived from false hopes rather than facing the reality. This is similar to Kitty Genovese incident because the bystanders claimed that they believed that someone else had already called for help and ignored the fact that no help had come. In fact, they seemed to have the mindset that if they don’t acknowledge it, then they don’t have to be a part of it.
In Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez describes to the reader the state of Santiago’s body after the autopsy. He describes the body as an “empty shell stuffed with rags and quicklime and sewed up crudely with coarse twine and baling needles was on the point of falling apart” (89). I found this interesting because the autopsy wasn’t necessary at all. An autopsy is used in order to determine the manner in which an individual died, but they already knew that Santiago Nasar was murdered and died because of the stabbing, and they even knew who had committed the crime. I think that Marquez put this into the story to show how the villagers felt about Santiago. This would show that the villagers didn’t seem to have any respect for Nasar, and the priest even said that it was like killing him all over again. It seems as if the only people that were actually bothered with the death of Santiago Nasar were the brothers who committed the murder. They were described as sick and not able to sleep. I think that the town’s attitude toward the murder shows that Nasar wasn’t liked, but the brother’s contrasting feelings show that even though they felt the same way, they weren’t ready to murder him.
In chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we learn that Santiago may have been innocent. The basis of the murder is that Santiago took the virginity of Angela Vicario, hence why the Vicario brothers wanted to murder him. Earlier in the story it is mentioned that Angela’s accusation may not even be true, however the villagers seem to have already condemned him. They do nothing to stop the murder, rather they gather in the square to watch it. This is where the story deviates from Kitty Genovese syndrome, as we talked about in class. Everyone knows that it’s going to happen. The problem is not that everyone thinks it isn't their responsibility, it’s that nobody cares to tell Santiago. Even though he hasn’t been proven guilty, they are convinced that he has taken Angela’s virginity. I think that the townspeople believe Angela’s accusation, and think that because of what has happened, it is the Vicario family’s responsibility to deal with the situation, and that they shouldn’t interfere.
I thought your idea that the problem is not that everyone thinks it isn't their responsibility, but that nobody cares to tell Santiago was interesting. However, I find it hard to think that in a matter of life or death, people should think about who has the responsibility when everyone has the obligation as a part of the community to stop a murder. I agree with your idea, but I also think that the townspeople’s apathy isn’t the only problem; rather it is a part of the bigger problem: nobody want to be involved in the incident. In fact, the narrator writes, “It was a thick crowd, but Escolastica Cisneros thought she noticed that the two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew that Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn’t dare touch him” (102) According to Escolastica Cisneros, Nasar and Bedoya walked toward the square in an empty circle because everyone around them knew he was going to die. The fact they that are literally going out of their way to not get involved in Nasar shows the extent of which apathy and disengagement are human failures that resulted in Nasar’s murder. This is also related to the Kitty Genovese’s murder because it was apathy that caused people to disregard her cry for help. There were many people who walked by and were inside their homes, but they stayed silent and inside to avoid involvement.
In the last chapter of the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the context of the book makes Santiago’s death seem like it was fate. For example, when Christo Bedoya learns of the plot to kill Nasar, he runs to warn him. However, as soon as he enters Nasar’s house, “he found the front door unbarred and ajar and he went in without seeing the paper on the floor” (104). The unbarred and open door gives a sense of anxiety and unrest as leaving an open front door usually indicates that an intruder has entered the house. Also, Bedoya didn’t notice the letter that was to warn Nasar. When Bedoya enters Nasar’s bedroom and decides to bring the gun for Nasar’s protection, he finds out “only after the crime that it was unloaded” (106). Not only does the open door serve as an ominous foreshadowing symbol, but the fate that he missed the letter makes it seem that people, including Nasar, was not meant to find the letter. Also, even though Bedoya brought the gun in order to protect Nasar, it was useless because it was by fate the gun was unloaded. No matter how Bedoya tried to save Nasar as soon as he heard the news, Marquez purposefully creates situations that prevent any of Bedoya’s attempts from succeeding in order to portray the theme that predetermined fate cannot be changed.
The horrifying death of Santiago not only affected the citizens of the whole town but reflected a theme of losing innocence. There were many indications portraying his innocence towards the situation. For example, the narrator explains, “...just as for Santiago Nasar’s closest friends, the victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence.” (Marquez 100). Prior to this accusation, Santiago was not emotionally affected by the marriage of Angela and Bayardo nor did he ever mention anything about Angela and the affair. Angela also never provided any details about their secret involvement with one another. In the brief, the magistrate was perplexed that no evidence was presented that he actually took Angela’s virginity. Despite his innocence, his death resembled fate. When Indalecio Pardio announces he will be warning Santiago Nasar about the crime close to taking place, Pedro Vicario clarifies, “Don’t bother, no matter what, he’s as good as dead already.” (Marquez 102). This almost-threat causes Indalecio Pardio to retreat from warning Santiago representing how this crime was meant to occur. People also did not dare to touch him. No one was able to get in the way of the Vicario brothers’ goal to murder the man who took away their family’s honor. This predestined death represents the loss of innocence prevalent throughout the town.
In chapter 4 of the novel Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez makes the readers wonder if Angela Vicario was truly in love. Firstly, Angela Vicario initially married Bayardo through reluctance, in which her family forced her family to do so. Furthermore, when she tried to hide the fact that she lost her virginity, she failed, and she put the blame on none other than Santiago Nasar. However, it is not confirmed in the novel that he was the one to take her virginity. In fact, there are narrations that disproves Angela’s statement. For example, when the narrator says, “Angela Vicario was protecting someone who really loved her had had chosen Santiago Nasar’s name” (90), he is stating that Angela lied that Santiago took her virginity in order to protect the real person who did so. This protection indicates that Angela has feelings for the person whom she protected, and perhaps this love of hers was the reason why she was reluctant in marrying Bayardo. Up until this point in the novel, the readers will most likely not doubt that Angela is in love, but the author hits them with quite a surprise, which is that after Angela and Bayardo has left each other, she actually fell in love with him. This intense feeling is evident in the narration, “She wrote a weekly letter for over a half a lifetime. ‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say,’ she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but is was enough for me to know that he was getting them’” (93-94). Here, the narrator emphasizes the fact that she was continuously sending letters to Bayardo for a long period of time and was sending them with the hope that he was receiving them. The strong preservation of Angela and her hope of reaching Bayardo illustrates her intense feelings towards them. Although this intense feeling should be called love, it must be noted that she previously was in love with some to the point of protecting him from possible conflicts. Thus, the author leaves the readers with following question: Was Angela in love with Bayardo or the person she protected, or was she even in love in the first place?
I agree with your statement. This type of authors craft is interesting because is makes readers think for themselves and for their own opinions on what they think happened in the novel. Readers could go based on what the "chronicle" said and that Santiago did take Angela's virginity. Or, readers could develop their own thoughts as to who really stole Angela's virginity, and why Angela would lie about it. I think that that is one of the aspects that makes this novel as interesting at it is and I think your blog does a great job at explaining so.
In Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the reader is lead to believe that Santiago Nasar was completely innocent of taking Angela Vicario’s virginity, and was killed wrongfully. This is first shown when, “at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong” (116, 117). This quote seems hyperbolic, but it is indeed factual. There was no proof, so Nasar must have been innocent. This book being a ‘chronicle’ really comes out in chapter 5 as well. The book tells of everyone’s accounts of the story, yet they all end with the same outcome. The final chapter focuses on those closest to Santiago. Nasir Miguel, a close friend, says, “‘From the first moment I understood that he didn’t have the slightest idea of what I was saying’…Then he asked him outright if he knew that the Vicario brothers were looking for him to kill him…He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (135). This mixing of perspectives in the quote from both the narrator and Nahir Miguel adds to the idea that Nasar was not at fault. So many people claim he genuinely had no idea he was going to be killed, and was thoroughly confused at their claims. Overall, hyperboles, and the use of multiple perspectives adds to the audience believing Santiago was innocent of taking Angela’s honor.
I liked the first half of your analysis, however I would disagree that the story becomes more of a “chronicle” in chapter 5. I thought that it was quite ironic that the story is even called Chronicle of a Death Foretold, because it shows no characteristics of a chronicle. Chronicles show events that lead to the climax in chronological order, and generally end with the audience learning who did the crime and how/where it was done. Chronicle of a Death Foretold tells the reader at the beginning of the story who is planning to murder Santiago, as well as telling the audience where/when the killing is going to happen. Marquez even tells the reader the Vicario brothers’ reason for the murder. Marquez also chooses to look at the murder from a single point of view at a time, in no particular order. This is the opposite of what most chronicles do.
Like Rishi, I agreed with the first part of your analysis and how the author never actually reveals the conclusion at the end of the book. But that's one of the things that makes the story not a chronicle. Chronicles have a clear, beginning, middle, and end. There isn't a clear ending at all, and no one knows if Santiago Nasar actually took Angela's virginity. This is an interesting use of authors craft and what makes Chronicle of a Death Foretold such an interesting novel.
In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the use of nonchalant language and foreshadow is prevalent throughout chapter one, providing a mysterious and immoral factor to the death of Santiago Nasar. While describing the setting, the unnamed narrator mentions, “...all the many people he ran into after leaving his house at five minutes past six and until he was carved up like a pig an hour later…” (Marquez 4). Stating the fact that he was “carved up like a pig” in a composed manner refers back to the Kitty Genovese Syndrome and the apathy shown for the murder. Even though there were several citizens aware that the death of Santiago was about to take place, many excuses were created, abating the crime that was about to occur. Divina Flor, the cook’s daughter, was continuously sexually harassed by Santiago. Her mother, Victoria Guzman, despised Santiago and his father for seducing her and probably Divina if he had lived longer. On the day of the murder, during breakfast, he furiously grabs her and Victoria quickly reacts and the narrator adds on that she “showed him the bloody knife.” (Marquez 9). Not only does this foreshadow how he is murdered, it also showcases Victoria’s eagerness for his death to occur. It seemed as though the people who were aware did not care enough to warn the family, similar to the Genovese case. The loss of innocence during this day is also an example of situational irony due to the fact that it was also the same day the bishop arrives on the ship, signifying a religious day for the citizens of this small town.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis regarding the mysterious factor of Santiago Nasar’s death that was similar to the murder of Kitty Genovese: in that no one made any attempt to stop it. Your writing reminded me of an earlier passage in the chapter that read, “Nevertheless, Divina Flor confessed to me on a later visit, after her mother had died, that the latter hadn’t said anything to Santiago Nasar because in the depths of her heart she wanted them to kill him” (Márquez 13). This made me wonder if the majority of the people who knew about the Vicario twins’ plan kept quiet because they also wanted him dead.
DeleteIn Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez constantly inputs different perspectives of multiple people to create an ambiguous and even confusing setting. Although it is fitting to include different perspectives as the narrator is a journalist trying to uncover Nasar’s mysterious murder, the vague and sometimes contradicting recollections make the setting unclear and unknown. For example, on the morning of Nasar’s murder “many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze coming in through the banana groves” (4), “but most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky an the thick smell of still waters” (4). In addition to the opinions of people as a whole, the narrator further provides evidence of both recollections with individual persons. Santiago Nasar’s mother claims that on the day of Nasar’s death, it was raining as she remembers cautioning him to “not get soaked by the rain” and to “take along an umbrella” (8), but immediately after, the narrator writes that Victoria Guzman “was sure it hadn’t rained that day, or during the whole month of February” (8). In fact, she said, “The sun warms things up earlier than in August” (9). In contrast to these ambiguous memories, there are details that everyone is sure of such as when everyone “remembered him as being a little sleepy but in a good mood.” Within the major events and details that everyone is sure of, Marquez purposefully weaves in mismatched details to emphasize the unreliability of humans. It becomes apparent as the story progresses that the unreliability of humans was perhaps why Nasar’s murder was not prevented as not a single person finds it important to warn Nasar of his imminent death.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the author includes such contradicting details into the story that really have nothing to do with the main problem at all- the murder of Santiago Nasar. Throughout the book, the narrator seems to recount such unimportant details into the story, such as the different character's memory of the weather, as you say. But what is the purpose of the author choosing to avoid the main conflicts in the story? Perhaps Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose to write in this manner to create a mysterious mood in the novel. The less information that is revealed, the more the reader is intrigued and would like to investigate the mysteries the book has to offer.
DeleteIn the first chapter of A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses visual imagery and the motif of fate to create a dreamlike, surreal mood. The novella opens by discussing Santiago Nasar’s dream about “going through a grove of timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling” (3). Márquez then states, “Nor did Santiago Nasar recognize the omen” (4). Márquez suggests that Nasar’s dreams about trees were ominous, yet never gives a reason why. Even Plácida Linero, a woman known for her skill in interpreting dreams, “hadn’t noticed any ominous augury” in her son’s dreams (4). Márquez offers no explanation of the dream in order to demonstrate that what is going to happen to Santiago Nasar is completely out of the control or understanding of anyone, even a person who employs the already surreal method of interpreting dreams. The visual imagery in Nasar’s dream of “going through a grove of timber trees” is part of a pattern throughout the chapter of describing Nasar’s movement through the scenes that Márquez creates. Márquez describes Nasar’s “fleeting passage through the bedroom” (6), his movement “through the shadowy house with long strides” (13), and how the Vicario twins “followed Santiago Nasar with their eyes as he began to cross the square” (16). The constant description of Nasar’s movement combined with the idea of dreams creates the feeling that Nasar is sleepwalking towards his fate.
ReplyDeleteWhen in a difficult position and faced with making a tough decision, people are often advised with the saying, ‘trust your gut’. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the ailing condition of Santiago Nasar to convey a theme of the importance of following your instincts. The conflict begins with Santiago Nasar waking from a dream, yet, “He had slept little and poorly, without getting undressed, and he woke up with a headache…” (Márquez 4). With this, he goes to his mother’s house, and wakes her up, “…trying to find an aspirin in the bathroom medicine cabinet” (Márquez 6). Immediately as the story starts, Santiago Nasar is characterized as somewhat sick and disgruntled; so much so that he must go to his mother’s house for medicine. However, despite not feeling himself, he still leaves his home later to see the bishop. Upon his arrival, a woman remarks that the normally cheerful Santiago Nasar, “’…already looked like a ghost…’” (Márquez 4). And by the end of the chapter, he had been killed by the Vicario twins. Between waking up and going to see the bishop, a span of about one hour, Santiago Nasar had been murdered. Had he trusted his gut when considering the effects of his temporary ailment and stayed home to rest, he could have escaped his untimely demise at the hands of the Vicario twins. Through the ailing condition of Santiago Nasar, Gabriel García Márquez conveys a theme of the importance of following your instincts; as it may be a matter of life or death.
ReplyDeleteSomething that intrigued me in chapter one of a Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was Marquez’s contradictory descriptions of the weather. At first, Marquez says that people recalled that the day had a “radiant morning” (Marquez 4). This however, would is contrasted when he says “Most agreed that the weather was a funeral with a cloudy low sky” (Marquez 4). The use of a metaphor here, describing the weather as a funeral because a funeral is dull and sad, and these adjectives are always used when describing bad weather. I think that Marquez decided to contrast himself here in order to show the reader the enigmatic nature of the crime. Something that came to mind is that maybe the weather reflects who knew that he was going to be murdered. Marquez tells the reader that many people knew that the murder was going to occur, but assumed that he had already been warned. Although it may be a stretch, I think that it’s possible that these are the people that reported that there was bad weather during that day, while the people that were unaware of the impending murder described the day as radiant.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis, it's light and concise :). I also found it interesting that different characters recalled the weather differently. This could be connected to the narrative style of writing the book has been written in. As it shows how people all were affected by their own personal schemas resulting in different descriptions of the day. Your analysis also helped me understand what these different interpretations of the weather could mean and what they symbolize.
DeleteIn A Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the reader immediately learns that Santiago Nasar is going to die and is lured to continue reading to find out how and why this fateful event will occur. In a sort of irony, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is in fact not a chronicle, because the story is not told in a chronological order. The reader is told the events leading up to Santiago Nasar’s death by many points of view, including his killers, the Vicario brothers, but the question of his guilt is left up to the reader. That is my favorite part about the book, the fact the you have to make inferences and decide and form your own opinions about the situation. There is no page number you can reference to completely answer the question of his guilt, you have to choose a side and make a decision for yourself. I believe that your point of view on Santiago’s guilt will change your opinion of the story as a whole. I think that if you think the Vicario brothers are right to kill Santiago, if you let him fill the role of the typical antagonist, you will enjoy the story less. But if the reader chooses to believe that Angela Vicario just says Santiago’s name to save herself, and begins to questions the circumstances surrounding Santiago’s death and why no one stopped the Vicario brothers, one will enjoy the experience more.
ReplyDeleteWhether conscious action or not, most people behave in such a way that will maintain their respected public image. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the conflict centered on Angela Vicario’s marriage to produce a motif of honor. To begin, on the day of the wedding, Bayardo San Román arrived two hours late, and in that time, Angela Vicario refused to put on her wedding dress. The narrator commented that, “Her caution seemed natural, because there was no public misfortune more shameful than a woman to be jilted in her bridal gown” (Márquez 41). With this, it wasn’t that Angela Vicario would have been emotionally hurt had Bayardo San Román not shown up at their wedding, she didn’t want to marry him in the first place: Angela Vicario was only worried that she would lose her dignity if Bayardo San Román stood her up. Later the same evening, Bayardo San Román learned that Angela Vicario was not a virgin and returned her to her mother, Pura Vicario. Angela Vicario recounts, “’The only thing I can remember is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other…’” (Márquez 46). Her mother’s outburst of anger was not solely a result of Angela Vicario losing her husband; Pura Vicario abused her daughter because she had ruined the reputation of the family. Through the conflict centered on Angela Vicario’s marriage, Gabriel García Márquez produces a motif of honor that enhances the idea that the public opinion is the only opinion that matters.
ReplyDeleteIn the Kitty Genovese Case, 38 people witnessed the violent murder of an innocent woman and didn’t call the police. In a similar situation, more than a dozen people knew of the attempted murder of Santiago Nasar, yet not a single one did anything to stop it. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses the characterization of the witnesses of Santiago Nasar’s murder to shine light on an ethical question: do people have the moral obligation to intervene when they see or hear something out of the ordinary? Most people who heard of the twins’ plans first thought of their character, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (Márquez 52). This claim is somewhat relevant as ‘good’ is a relative term, however even so, ‘good’ people don’t attempt murder. With this, even if the Vicario twins really were upstanding people, there is still the consideration of their present condition as many commented that the brothers were drinking and appeared to be confused. The people who assumed the twins had simply partied too hard at the wedding claimed, “’We thought it was drunkards’ baloney’” (Márquez 52). In this case, no one took the brothers seriously, assuming they were talking nonsense because of the alcohol. Yet in both circumstances, not one person acted on the side of caution; to try and save Santiago Nasar even if it turned out that the Vicario twins were lying. Through the characterization of the witnesses of Santiago Nasar’s murder, Gabriel García Márquez hints that people have a moral obligation to intervene when they see or hear something out of the ordinary: that it is better to be safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteGabriel García Márquez uses the motif of wealth in order to characterize Bayardo San Román and Angela Vicario and to discuss the nature of their relationship. Bayardo San Román is described as a somewhat mysterious but charming man who “had turned up” on a boat from some faraway town. He is immediately characterized by his “golden eyes” (25) and the observation that “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold” (27). The association of gold with Román’s character indicates that he may be wealthy and have all the appearances of respectability, but that underneath there exists something sinister. The narrator suggests this when he writes, “his golden eyes had caused the shudder of a fear” in Luisa Santiaga (28). Márquez contrasts Román’s wealth with Angela Vicario’s “family of scant resources” (30). In addition to being poor in terms of money, Márquez describes Angela as having “penury of spirit,” implying that her lifestyle of poverty sapped her of any richness of character (32). In this way, Márquez identifies Angela and Bayardo by the opposite characteristics of wealth and poverty. Wealth also plays a key role in bringing about their engagement. Bayardo uses his wealth to try to impress Angela by purchasing all the tickets in a raffle. He wins over Angela’s family by showing the wealth and power of his father, and later uses his wealth to buy Angela’s dream home from a widower who insists that it is not for sale. Although Angela “didn’t want to marry him,” her family claimed that “a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny” (34). Márquez used the relationship between Angela and Bayardo to comment that the wealthy are able to take advantage of the poor in a way that is completely accepted by society.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the town the “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” takes place, honor is pivotal for the families and is seen as a serious matter. There are many indications for why many of the characters’ actions took place, most of them accentuating the idea of saving or conserving one’s reputation, showcasing a theme of honor. Angela, prior to their marriage, did not receive the freedom most women would have today. The narrator explains, “...she’d grown up along with her sisters under the rigor of a mother of iron… Pura Vicario wouldn’t let her go out alone with Bayardo San Roman to see the house where they were going to live, but she and the blind father accompanied her to watch over her honor.” (Marquez 37). In this passage, the narrator is referring to Angela’s family’s strict rules over the daughter’s actions. The parents’ conservatism is to preserve the image of their family by following the tradition of saving oneself until marriage. This can also foreshadow and explains Pura Vicario’s, Angela’s mother, violent response when Bayardo returns Angela back to the family. It is also mentioned that Bayardo was actually two hours late to his own wedding, which quickly starts to worry Angela since she was afraid he would misfortunately alone on the altar in her wedding down. The narrator then brings up an interesting fact, “... the fact that Angela Vicario dared put on the veil and the orange blossoms without being a virgin would be interpreted afterwards as a profanation of the symbols of purity.” (Marquez 41). Prior to this passage, the narrator explains in-depth the idea behind the “stain of honor” (Marquez 38) which was a normal occurrence for newlyweds. Angela had long broken this ritual by losing her virginity and the lie she had created to put the blame on someone else. Acknowledging her sacrilegious actions stresses the gender norms of women remaining pure and preserving innocence.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you wrote. I think women during this time had little to no freedom or say in what they wanted and Marquez accurately shows this through the actions of the characters in chapter two. As he introduces these characters, he makes a large impact by characterizing Bayardo San Roman the way he did, as this large, wealthy, and intimidating figure. I think this novel, especially this chapter, made readers aware of the great extents that women went through to please a man, as Angela was told multiple ways to fake her virginity in order to please Bayardo and be socially accepted.
DeleteThroughout Chapter 3 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the dark language used to describe the Vicario brothers indicate their loss of innocence. After spending three years with the brothers, the prisoners described them and says “they never noticed any indication of remorse in them.” (Marquez 49), signifying their lack of humanity after committing the murder. There was no guilt involved in the crime since they truly believed the death of Santiago Nasar was an act of honor. It is also evident that they did not treat Santiago as a human but rather as an animal (a pig to be specific, which also showcases how he may have been compared to a hog since he was suspected to have taken Angela’s virginity, disrespecting traditions and breaking the theme of honor) in which the narrator often referred to the brothers as slaughterers. Clotilde Armenta illustrates Pedro and Pablo’s physical outlook, “Their shirts were dirty with dried sweat and a one-day beard gave them a backwoods look.” (Marquez 54). Although a subtle detail, this description shows how they have evolved into the dark and scary murderers that they are. It also emphasizes the brothers’ machismo, or strong and aggressive masculine pride prevalent in Latin American cultures, and their eagerness to kill Santiago to preserve the honor of their family. Making the final decision, although faced with inner conflicts due to their counteracting personalities, did not involve their conscience driving them out of this resolution. In fact, this may be a result of all of the pigs they have sacrificed (for religious reasons, I’m guessing). The narrator writes, “...Vicario brothers sacrificed the same hogs they raised… (Marquez 52), indirectly characterizing their inhumane nature. Prior to this fact, many butchers agreed to have found it difficult to slaughter the animals which proves their innocence was still present. Opposing the butchers, they have completely lost their humanity even before the murder of Santiago took place.
ReplyDeleteIn the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses visual imagery and metaphors to foreshadow Nasar’s death caused by Angela and Bayardo San Roman. When Bayardo is first introduced, he is portrayed as an attractive and admirable man with “the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter” (25). However, the narrator’s mother later admits that she has honestly feared Bayardo and “reminded her of the devil” (28). By relating Bayardo with the devil as a first impression immediately unnerves readers and can expect something ominous. In fact, the devil is quite fitting as it is not only the universal symbol of death, but sin and chaos. The narrator then proceeds to recount the time when Bayardo first sees Angela. Bayardo is half-awake when he sees “Angela Vicario and her mother crossing the square carrying two baskets of artificial flowers … dressed in unforgiving black” (28). Not only are flowers a common item used in funerals, but they are artificial meaning that the flowers have no life. Furthermore, their black clothing, which was a part of their mourning ritual, represents death as Angela’s and Bayardo’s union will inevitably bring the end of Nasar’s life. The narrator further writes about Angela’s close connection with death. The narrator writes, “unlike other girls of the time, who had neglected the cult of death, the four [sisters] were past mistresses in the ancient science of sitting up with the ill, comforting the dying, and enshrouding the dead” (31). Angela Vicario is often associated closely with death, either by her life or her appearance, but it is with these details that Marquez is able to foreshadow Nasar’s death as a result of Angela’s marriage with Bayardo.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter Three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez portrays honor as an independent force that leads to Santiago Nasar’s death. After the Vicario twins kill Nasar, they rush into the church to admit their crime. Pedro Vicario says, “We killed him openly…but we’re innocent” (49). Pablo Vicario explains that they were innocent “before God and before men” because “it was a matter of honor” (49). The court upheld the verdict that the murder was committed “in legitimate defense of honor” (48). This ruling demonstrates the importance that honor has in the society Nasar describes. Rather than being held in contempt for the brutal public murder, the Vicario twins were acquitted and accepted back into society. No one wanted Santiago Nasar to die, yet no one denounced the people who killed him. Márquez further emphasizes the idea that Nasar’s death was not due to human passion when he writes, “the Vicario brothers…had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him” (49). Even Nasar’s murderers did not want to carry out the deed that “honor” required of them. By emphasizing the impact of the social value of honor, Márquez removes some of the blame from the Vicario twins. In this way, Márquez comments that strict social values can be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI found your interpretation of the motive behind Santiago Nasar’s murder very interesting. I agree that the Vicario twins killed him for honor; to retain the family’s reputation. However with that said, I never thought of the fact that the Vicario brothers may not have wanted to carry out the gruesome deed. This idea made me wonder whether or not other people in the community would have gone to the same drastic extreme if they were in a similar position; or if the Vicario twins were simply an anomaly and had no other way to preserve their respect in a society with such strict social values.
DeleteI think one of the most prominent themes of chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death foretold was the value of honor and what it meant to the people of the story. Most of the conflicts aroused throughout Chapter 2 brought up the honor of an individual. One clearest example of this was the whole ordeal involving Angela’s virginity. First, it was considered unhonorable for a man to mess up when hiding his snake in the bush, as seen in the quote on page 38: “that most men came to their wedding night so frightened that they were incapable in doing anything without the woman’s help”. The other questions of honor were for the woman. Simply having your virginity was a topic of honor. If you lost your virginity, you were often rejected by your family: “the only thing that I can remember was is that she was holding me by the hair with one hand and beating me with the other with such a rage that I thought she was going to kill me”. You were even rejected by your spouse, which is clearly seen, as Bayardo San Roman rejects her as a spouse, and outright gives her back to her parents. As we find out in other parts of the book (SPOILER ALERT), Nasar is eventually killed because he disrespected the honor of Angela by taking her virginity. This just shows how much honor was taken seriously and raises the question: does honor excuse the crimes that occur in the book?
ReplyDeleteIn the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez often characterizes the Vicario twins as children to show their human’s true and natural inclination to inhumanity. According to Clotilde Armenta, she claims that “they looked like two children … and the thought frightened her, because she’s always felt that only children are capable of everything” (55). This is fitting because children often do not think of consequences and are blind to reality by their obsession; in this case, the twins are so blinded by their obligation to maintain family honor that nothing, not even morality, is enough to stop them from committing murder. This childish instinct of selfishness and close-mindedness represents the natural human nature capable of such horrors. In fact, after the twins were awaiting trial, “older prisoners remembered them for their good character and sociability, but they never noticed any indication of remorse in them” (49). Their lack of remorse directly correlates to children’s lack of understanding and true emotions that only maturity can achieve. Despite children being the universal symbol of innocence and purity, Marquez uses children to characterize the twins in order to show the true, dark face of children and their capability to commit inhumane actions.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I found interesting in chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold was when Angela doesn’t want to get married. Her mother said to her “Love can be learned too" (Marquez 35). Although we don’t know the time period in which the book is set in, this sentence can give us insight into this issue. A mother telling her child that love can be learned too allows us to infer that it was very important for women to get married in the situation that they were in. I think that this could lead us to two solutions. The first being that the book was set in a time period in which women relied upon men in order to function and to be viewed as normal (similar to ADH). The other situation is that it may be set in a different culture or society in which women are expected to marry men because of their culture. Both situations lead to the same outcome; a society in which women are second class citizens, with limited independence. I think that these inferences are the exact reason that Marquez chose to include this sentence in the book, especially coming from her mother. The reason that it is important coming from her mother is because her mother only wants what’s best for her, and she understands that Angela needs to be married in order to be accepted.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses the weather to further emphasize the mystery surrounding the murder. Colonel Aponte seems to be sure that it was raining on the day, and even gives a specific time, stating “... it was almost 5 oclock and it was beginning to rain” (Márquez 64). Giving a specific time generally gives the notion that an individual is very sure of what they are talking about, because when someone is unsure of events their description is usually very vague. From this we can draw the conclusion that the Colonel was telling the truth about the weather (although I see no reason for anyone to lie about it, everyone seems to genuinely believe that the weather was different, this is just one example). Marquez then furthers the idea of mystery with one of the twin brothers stating that it was a clear night. I think that the reason that Marquez chooses to bring this issue up again is to show the reader that the mystery will not be solved through people’s memories, as everyone seems to have different accounts of what the day was like. The other thing that I though Marquez might have been trying to do was to show the reader that there may be something in common between the people that remember it as a gloomy day, and the people that remember it as a clear day, however I haven’t yet found the connection.
ReplyDelete"We'd been together at Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house until after three, when she herself sent the musicians away and turned out the lights in the dancing courtyard so that her pleasurable mulatto girls could get some rest…Maria Alejandrina Cervantes was the most elegant and the most tender woman I have ever known, and the most serviceable in bed, but she was also the strictest. She'd been born and reared here, and here she lived, in a house with open doors, with several rooms for rent and an enormous courtyard for dancing lit by lantern gourds bought in the Chinese bazaars of Paramaribo."
ReplyDeleteThis quote is taken from the middle of Chapter 3 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold. I chose this quote because of how ironic it was, and how it was a good example of magical realism in the book. The quote is ironic because Maria is pretty much described as a whore. However, this quote describes her as a wonderful young girl in the town who teaches the men in the art of riding the wild bull. This is especially strange because throughout the rest of the book, one’s sexual honor is taken very seriously, to the point of murder. The magical realism is present through the vivid imagery of the courtyard. It’s described with lantern gourds bought in the Chinese bazaars of Paramaribo." Something usually mundane is described in a highly sophisticated manner, almost making it seem unreal. This quote helped illuminate the magical realism throughout the book, and present the social ideas to the reader
In the second chapter, there is an obvious change in focus. Marquez shows the side of women in the time period as powerless and under the dominance of men. I can connect this to other novels we have read this year including “Taming of the Shrew" and “A Doll’s House”. Reading these pieces of literature coterminously makes me realize the depth of how terrible the situation was for women before modern day. When Angela does not wish to marry Bayardo, her justification is that she is not in love with him. This seems as though it would be a sufficient reason, as today one does not have to marry when they are not in love (in most cases). The response her mother gave her made me think about the situation from two different perspectives, mainly dealing with various cultures I have experienced in my life. She told her, “Love can be learned too"(35). At first glance, this quote made me angry as her mother was not letting her daughter have a choice in the situation. However, I began thinking about arranged marriages and noticed that more often than not, those marriages work out better than meeting someone, falling in love, then proceeding to get married. This is because they learned to love each other. Her mother may know that this is best decision for her daughter. Marquez seems to emphasize this dilemma to show what life was like for women back then, but was the forced marriage necessarily as bad as people think it is?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the third chapter, the reader is able to see the importance of reputation and honor to the characters. Following Angela Vicario's return home with her husband after him finding out that she is not a virgin, her two brothers, Pablo and Pedro Vicario, decide they will murder the man who took their sister’s virginity. They do this with the motive being their sister’s honor. Marquez writes, “‘We killed him openly,’ Pedro Vicario said, ‘but we're innocent.’ ‘Perhaps before God,’ said Father Amador. ‘Before God and before men,’ Pablo Vicario said. ‘It was a matter of honor’ (48). Pablo Vicario defends his decision to kill Santiago Nasar by saying it was a matter of honor. This shows how important your reputation was during this time period. It was extremely wrong for a woman to have lost her virginity to someone who was not her husband. Premarital sex was frowned upon in this culture. Angela Vicario’s honor is at risk now that her secret of losing her virginity has been found out. Her husband returning her to her home is embarrassing for her, along with her family. Angela’s brothers think that if they kill Santiago, they will prove a point, and save their sister’s honor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that honor was extremely important to Nasar’s society, and that this was one of the motives for the crime. Although the Vicario twins appear to be intent on killing Nasar to reestablish their sister’s honor, they make multiple efforts to convince people to stop them. This demonstrates that the twins do not want to become murderers; their intention is to be prevented from committing the murder while still making a show of fighting for Angela’s honor. The value that society placed on honor made this show necessary.
DeleteIn the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez uses a metaphor to show the devastating effects of the human’s propensity to feel apathy and the lack of responsibility. First of all, Nasar could have been saved had he been warned about his death, but not a single person out of the many who knew cared enough to take an extra step to warn him or make sure he was safe leading to his death. Even after he dies, the town seems unsure how to resolve the murder. The mayor is “unexperienced in matters of law … and too conceited to ask anyone who knew where he should begin” (73). The lack of reaction and responsibility is directly reflected by the condition of Nasar’s corpse. As the autopsy was delayed without a freezer to prevent decomposition and took place in a personal open to public view, the body continued to deteriorate from the lack of care it received. At first, “the face had remained intact, with the same expression it wore when he [Nasar] was singing” (74), but “nevertheless, in the afternoon a syrup-colored liquid began to flow from the wounds, drawing flies and purple botch appeared … His face, which had always been easy-going, took on a hostile expression, and his mother covered it with a handkerchief” (74). The narrator often refers to the autopsy process as a “massacre” (76). In fact, the priest said “It was as if we killed him all over again after he was dead” (72), and “they gave back a completely different body … the lady-killer face that death had preserved ended having lost its identity” (76). By using more vivid visual imagery of the metaphor, the Marquez clearly shows the direct and destructive consequences of the lack of care and responsibility people have as a society/community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis that the autopsy represents the consequences of society’s carelessness. I also think that the autopsy is significant in demonstrating that the society was unfamiliar with dealing with gruesome crimes. It is natural to feel unsure of oneself in out of the ordinary circumstances, and this feeling must only have been exacerbated by the fact that the crime was so repulsive. Márquez suggests that the townspeople chose not to act out of uncertainty and disbelief rather than apathy. The Vicario twins were viewed as very respectable young men, and for this reason few people took them seriously when they announced their plans to murder Nasar. While Nasar’s death can be attributed to human failure, it is not necessarily a failure of apathy but instead one of uncertainty and incorrect decisions.
DeleteThe perception of smell is very powerful in the sense that it is extremely accurate in reviving past memories. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses olfactory imagery to represent the Vicario twins’ guilt for killing Santiago Nasar and convey a theme regarding the dangers of remorse. Following the tragic murder, everyone was hysterical as the essence of Santiago Nasar was conspicuous. The narrator recounts, “Everything smelled of Santiago Nasar that day. The Vicario brothers could smell him in the jail cell …” (Márquez 78). By this, even though the murder is in the past, the Vicario brothers are forced by their sense of smell to relive the moment in which they killed Santiago Nasar: his scent alone is enough for them to conjure up those memories. However, while most felons would be completely ignorant in prison, the fact that the Vicario twins notice an abstract part of Santiago Nasar that isn’t really there hints at the fact that they hold some guilt for their actions. Later, the Vicario brothers, “…asked for lots of water, laundry soap, and rags, and they washed the brood from their arms and faces, and they also washed their shirts but they couldn’t get any rest” (Márquez 79). With the smell too much to bear, the Vicario brothers attempt to eliminate the aroma of Santiago Nasar, however they are unsuccessful. With this, the dangers of remorse come into play as the Vicario brothers are stressed, anxious and no longer able to sleep: their guilt has now taken a toll on their physical and mental health. Through the use of olfactory imagery as a representation of the Vicario twins’ guilt, Gabriel García Márquez conveys a theme regarding the dangers of remorse and the impact it has on an individual.
ReplyDeletePhilosopher Thomas Hobbes is well known for his theory of human nature, saying that the life of a man is, “…nasty, brutish and short”. In other words, people are naturally inconsiderate and self-centered. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez uses pretentious diction to hint at the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and give insight on the selfish nature of humans. To begin, when the magistrate arrives to investigate the murder, an immense crowd gathers to testify although they were not asked to do so. The narrator comments that their appearance was due to their eagerness, “…to show off his own important role in the drama” (Márquez 98). The choice of extravagant words in this excerpt like ‘show off’, ‘important role’ and ‘drama’ make it clear that the group did not gather to help convict the men responsible for the murder: they simply wanted to play a part in the grand ordeal for egotistical reasons. In addition, the narrator later shares that Pedro Vicario, “…made the decision to wipe his sister’s honor clean” (Márquez 108). Once again, through words like ‘honor’ and ‘clean’, an affluent tone is set, making Pedro Vicario look excessively vain. However, this emphasizes the true motive of the Vicario brothers, as they only want to kill Santiago Nasar for personal reasons; to get revenge and restore their family reputation. Through the use of pretentious diction, Gabriel García Márquez shines light on the selfish nature of humans; a subject that is prevalent throughout the duration of Chronicle of a Death Foretold.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter Four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez describes Angela Vicario’s life after becoming a disgraced bride. The narrator is struck by the way that Angela has recovered from the embarrassment and “ended up understanding her own life” (89). Angela develops a resistance towards her mother, who has “gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life” (89). It is implied that Pura Vicario has sought to hide her daughter from the world because she was never able to forget the shame of her daughter’s disgrace. However, the narrator makes it clear that this shame is unnecessary when he writes that Nasar’s death meant “the seduced sister was in possession of her honor once more” (84). Angela’s mother is destined to live her life in the past, something that Angela realizes when she “saw her as she was: a poor woman devoted to the cult of her defects” (92). After this realization, Angela rejects her mother and the fear of the past that her mother represents. Ironically, Angela discovers “that hate and love are reciprocal passions” and becomes obsessed with Bayardo San Román (93). While Angela appears to have put the horrors of her past behind her, the narrator suggests that “she spoke about her misfortune without any shame in order to cover up the other misfortune, the real one, that was burning in her insides” (91). Angela spends seventeen years of her life writing weekly letters to Bayardo. Angela, like her mother, is living her life in the past. Márquez creates this ironic juxtaposition between Angela’s rejection of and devotion to the past in order to reinforce the idea that the story he chronicles remains present in the lives of everyone involved.
“They left the farmhouse the way it was. My brothers and I would go up to explore it on carousing nights when we were home on vacation, and each time we found fewer things of value in the abandoned rooms… Years later when I came back to search out the last pieces of testimony for this chronicle, not even the embers of Yolanda Xius’s happiness remained. Things had been disappearing little by little, despite Colonel Lazaro Aponte’s determined vigilance… The house began to crumble. The wedding car was falling apart by the door, and finally nothing remained except its weather-rotted carcass. There is a declaration by him in the brief, but it was so short and conventional that it seems to have been put together at the last minute in order to comply with an unavoidable requirement. The only time I tried to talk to him, twenty-three years later, he received me with a certain aggressiveness and refused to supply even the most insignificant fact that might clarify a little his participation in the drama. In any case, not even his family knew much more about him than we did, nor did they have the slightest idea of what he had come to do in a islaid town, with no other apparent aim than to marry a woman he had never seen.” (Marquez 86-87)
ReplyDeleteThe significance of the house parallels Bayardo San Roman’s life. The narrator’s choice of words portray a negative diction resembling Bayardo’s depressing state. For example, the house itself was a mystery, similar to the lack of knowledge towards Bayardo’s overall intentions. Many citizens of the town would trespass and explore this abandoned house while finding insignificant to valuable trinkets left by the owner. Objects were being stolen from the house. No matter how many bagatelles people came across to in the house, it was still classified as a wonder. In Bayardo’s case, even his family was not aware of what he was thinking or feeling at all times. People, even the narrator, tried to piece together Bayardo’s purpose in the situation. Everyone was curious about both the house and Bayardo. He was a riddle in human form. The physical state of the house also follow his mental condition which is mostly filled with melancholy. For days after the wedding and the return of Angela to her original family, Bayardo was reaching a state of despair. He settled onto drinking to forget and was apathetic towards making any progress with his life. When the house was left behind, it began to deteriorate from the weather and the amount of trespassing that had occurred over the last several years. No one, except Colonel Lazaro Aponte who failed to do so, took care of the house resulting in an ugly aftermath. Since Bayardo felt as if there was nothing else to live for, he was close to letting his life slip by until the rescue of his family.
Márquez begins the final chapter of his novella with the sentence, “For years we couldn’t talk about anything else” (96). He goes on to describe the lasting impact that the society’s collective failure to stop the murder has had on the individuals involved. The narrator describes the reason that the town spent so much time dwelling on the crime: “none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate” (96). While this may seem like Márquez is attributing Nasar’s murder to fate alone, it is more likely that Márquez is describing the collective desire of the townspeople to do so. Unwilling to reconcile themselves with the fact that they could have done something to prevent the crime, many were ready to blame either fate or the idea that “affairs of honor are sacred monopolies” (97). Despite their ability to absolve themselves from blame, many of the townspeople came down with a variety of absurd afflictions after the crime. The narrator enumerates these afflictions: “Hortensia Baute… fell into a penitential crisis, and one day, unable to stand it any longer, she ran out naked into the street… Aura Villeros… suffered a spasm of the bladder when she heard the news and to the day of her death had to use a catheter in order to urinate” (97). Although these people played insignificant roles in the crime, their distress demonstrates that the people of the town felt regret and responsibility for what happened no matter how successful they were at blaming fate. Márquez uses a somewhat humorous and judgmental tone when describing these afflictions to show that the people of the town subconsciously forced themselves to suffer in an effort to atone for the crime that they denied they had ever committed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that Marquez seems to make the townspeople hope that Nasar’s death was dictated by fate alone when in reality, the townspeople are not free from blame. By simply not wanting to be involved, they all contributed to Nasar’s death. For example, when Meme Loiza sees Nasar and Beyoda walking down the dock, she says “they were both getting along so contentedly that I gave thanks to God, because I thought the matter has been cleared up” (101) Although Meme knows all about the twins’ plans, she desperately hopes that it’s not true, so when she sees Nasar well and alive, she immediately assumes that there will be no harm. This false assumptions is derived from false hopes rather than facing the reality. This is similar to Kitty Genovese incident because the bystanders claimed that they believed that someone else had already called for help and ignored the fact that no help had come. In fact, they seemed to have the mindset that if they don’t acknowledge it, then they don’t have to be a part of it.
DeleteIn Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez describes to the reader the state of Santiago’s body after the autopsy. He describes the body as an “empty shell stuffed with rags and quicklime and sewed up crudely with coarse twine and baling needles was on the point of falling apart” (89). I found this interesting because the autopsy wasn’t necessary at all. An autopsy is used in order to determine the manner in which an individual died, but they already knew that Santiago Nasar was murdered and died because of the stabbing, and they even knew who had committed the crime. I think that Marquez put this into the story to show how the villagers felt about Santiago. This would show that the villagers didn’t seem to have any respect for Nasar, and the priest even said that it was like killing him all over again. It seems as if the only people that were actually bothered with the death of Santiago Nasar were the brothers who committed the murder. They were described as sick and not able to sleep. I think that the town’s attitude toward the murder shows that Nasar wasn’t liked, but the brother’s contrasting feelings show that even though they felt the same way, they weren’t ready to murder him.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we learn that Santiago may have been innocent. The basis of the murder is that Santiago took the virginity of Angela Vicario, hence why the Vicario brothers wanted to murder him. Earlier in the story it is mentioned that Angela’s accusation may not even be true, however the villagers seem to have already condemned him. They do nothing to stop the murder, rather they gather in the square to watch it. This is where the story deviates from Kitty Genovese syndrome, as we talked about in class. Everyone knows that it’s going to happen. The problem is not that everyone thinks it isn't their responsibility, it’s that nobody cares to tell Santiago. Even though he hasn’t been proven guilty, they are convinced that he has taken Angela’s virginity. I think that the townspeople believe Angela’s accusation, and think that because of what has happened, it is the Vicario family’s responsibility to deal with the situation, and that they shouldn’t interfere.
ReplyDeleteI thought your idea that the problem is not that everyone thinks it isn't their responsibility, but that nobody cares to tell Santiago was interesting. However, I find it hard to think that in a matter of life or death, people should think about who has the responsibility when everyone has the obligation as a part of the community to stop a murder. I agree with your idea, but I also think that the townspeople’s apathy isn’t the only problem; rather it is a part of the bigger problem: nobody want to be involved in the incident. In fact, the narrator writes, “It was a thick crowd, but Escolastica Cisneros thought she noticed that the two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew that Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn’t dare touch him” (102) According to Escolastica Cisneros, Nasar and Bedoya walked toward the square in an empty circle because everyone around them knew he was going to die. The fact they that are literally going out of their way to not get involved in Nasar shows the extent of which apathy and disengagement are human failures that resulted in Nasar’s murder. This is also related to the Kitty Genovese’s murder because it was apathy that caused people to disregard her cry for help. There were many people who walked by and were inside their homes, but they stayed silent and inside to avoid involvement.
DeleteIn the last chapter of the Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the context of the book makes Santiago’s death seem like it was fate. For example, when Christo Bedoya learns of the plot to kill Nasar, he runs to warn him. However, as soon as he enters Nasar’s house, “he found the front door unbarred and ajar and he went in without seeing the paper on the floor” (104). The unbarred and open door gives a sense of anxiety and unrest as leaving an open front door usually indicates that an intruder has entered the house. Also, Bedoya didn’t notice the letter that was to warn Nasar. When Bedoya enters Nasar’s bedroom and decides to bring the gun for Nasar’s protection, he finds out “only after the crime that it was unloaded” (106). Not only does the open door serve as an ominous foreshadowing symbol, but the fate that he missed the letter makes it seem that people, including Nasar, was not meant to find the letter. Also, even though Bedoya brought the gun in order to protect Nasar, it was useless because it was by fate the gun was unloaded. No matter how Bedoya tried to save Nasar as soon as he heard the news, Marquez purposefully creates situations that prevent any of Bedoya’s attempts from succeeding in order to portray the theme that predetermined fate cannot be changed.
ReplyDeleteThe horrifying death of Santiago not only affected the citizens of the whole town but reflected a theme of losing innocence. There were many indications portraying his innocence towards the situation. For example, the narrator explains, “...just as for Santiago Nasar’s closest friends, the victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence.” (Marquez 100). Prior to this accusation, Santiago was not emotionally affected by the marriage of Angela and Bayardo nor did he ever mention anything about Angela and the affair. Angela also never provided any details about their secret involvement with one another. In the brief, the magistrate was perplexed that no evidence was presented that he actually took Angela’s virginity. Despite his innocence, his death resembled fate. When Indalecio Pardio announces he will be warning Santiago Nasar about the crime close to taking place, Pedro Vicario clarifies, “Don’t bother, no matter what, he’s as good as dead already.” (Marquez 102). This almost-threat causes Indalecio Pardio to retreat from warning Santiago representing how this crime was meant to occur. People also did not dare to touch him. No one was able to get in the way of the Vicario brothers’ goal to murder the man who took away their family’s honor. This predestined death represents the loss of innocence prevalent throughout the town.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 4 of the novel Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel García Márquez makes the readers wonder if Angela Vicario was truly in love. Firstly, Angela Vicario initially married Bayardo through reluctance, in which her family forced her family to do so. Furthermore, when she tried to hide the fact that she lost her virginity, she failed, and she put the blame on none other than Santiago Nasar. However, it is not confirmed in the novel that he was the one to take her virginity. In fact, there are narrations that disproves Angela’s statement. For example, when the narrator says, “Angela Vicario was protecting someone who really loved her had had chosen Santiago Nasar’s name” (90), he is stating that Angela lied that Santiago took her virginity in order to protect the real person who did so. This protection indicates that Angela has feelings for the person whom she protected, and perhaps this love of hers was the reason why she was reluctant in marrying Bayardo. Up until this point in the novel, the readers will most likely not doubt that Angela is in love, but the author hits them with quite a surprise, which is that after Angela and Bayardo has left each other, she actually fell in love with him. This intense feeling is evident in the narration, “She wrote a weekly letter for over a half a lifetime. ‘Sometimes I couldn’t think of what to say,’ she told me, dying with laughter, ‘but is was enough for me to know that he was getting them’” (93-94). Here, the narrator emphasizes the fact that she was continuously sending letters to Bayardo for a long period of time and was sending them with the hope that he was receiving them. The strong preservation of Angela and her hope of reaching Bayardo illustrates her intense feelings towards them. Although this intense feeling should be called love, it must be noted that she previously was in love with some to the point of protecting him from possible conflicts. Thus, the author leaves the readers with following question: Was Angela in love with Bayardo or the person she protected, or was she even in love in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement. This type of authors craft is interesting because is makes readers think for themselves and for their own opinions on what they think happened in the novel. Readers could go based on what the "chronicle" said and that Santiago did take Angela's virginity. Or, readers could develop their own thoughts as to who really stole Angela's virginity, and why Angela would lie about it. I think that that is one of the aspects that makes this novel as interesting at it is and I think your blog does a great job at explaining so.
DeleteIn Chapter 5 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the reader is lead to believe that Santiago Nasar was completely innocent of taking Angela Vicario’s virginity, and was killed wrongfully. This is first shown when, “at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong” (116, 117). This quote seems hyperbolic, but it is indeed factual. There was no proof, so Nasar must have been innocent. This book being a ‘chronicle’ really comes out in chapter 5 as well. The book tells of everyone’s accounts of the story, yet they all end with the same outcome. The final chapter focuses on those closest to Santiago. Nasir Miguel, a close friend, says, “‘From the first moment I understood that he didn’t have the slightest idea of what I was saying’…Then he asked him outright if he knew that the Vicario brothers were looking for him to kill him…He agreed that his manner reflected not so much fear as confusion” (135). This mixing of perspectives in the quote from both the narrator and Nahir Miguel adds to the idea that Nasar was not at fault. So many people claim he genuinely had no idea he was going to be killed, and was thoroughly confused at their claims. Overall, hyperboles, and the use of multiple perspectives adds to the audience believing Santiago was innocent of taking Angela’s honor.
ReplyDeleteI liked the first half of your analysis, however I would disagree that the story becomes more of a “chronicle” in chapter 5. I thought that it was quite ironic that the story is even called Chronicle of a Death Foretold, because it shows no characteristics of a chronicle. Chronicles show events that lead to the climax in chronological order, and generally end with the audience learning who did the crime and how/where it was done. Chronicle of a Death Foretold tells the reader at the beginning of the story who is planning to murder Santiago, as well as telling the audience where/when the killing is going to happen. Marquez even tells the reader the Vicario brothers’ reason for the murder. Marquez also chooses to look at the murder from a single point of view at a time, in no particular order. This is the opposite of what most chronicles do.
DeleteLike Rishi, I agreed with the first part of your analysis and how the author never actually reveals the conclusion at the end of the book. But that's one of the things that makes the story not a chronicle. Chronicles have a clear, beginning, middle, and end. There isn't a clear ending at all, and no one knows if Santiago Nasar actually took Angela's virginity. This is an interesting use of authors craft and what makes Chronicle of a Death Foretold such an interesting novel.
Delete