Chapter 1 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is very atypical as far as the usual crime novels are concerned. In this chapter, the motive, method, location, perpetrators, and circumstances of the crime are all revealed. Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses an interesting mix of foreshadowing and ambiguity to show the reader that Nasar’s death is preventable, yet at the same time inevitable. This seemingly contradictory statement is yet another element of the novel that makes it an example of magical realism, as contradictory elements are blended in a way that manages to make sense to the reader. Marquez uses vague dialogues to foreshadow the fact that Santiago Nasar will die. Nasar himself says “‘that’s what my wedding is going to be like,’ he said. ‘Life will be too short for people to tell about it’”(20). Nasar’s quote is cryptic-- it could be interpreted as saying that other people will have more to say about his wedding than can be said in one lifetime, or it could be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the fact that Nasar’s life will be too short for people to get the chance to speak of his wedding. The fact that his death is foreshadowed is very strange-- the reader already knows Nasar is going to day. Marquez uses the added vague foreshadowing to drive home the point that Nasar’s death is inevitable, as he constantly reminds the reader that it is imminent. Later, Marquez writes “nevertheless, Divina Flor confessed to me on a later visit...(her mother) wanted them to kill him”(13). Here Marquez contradicts his earlier statement that Victoria Guzman didn't believe in the rumor of Nasar’s death. This contradiction creates an ambiguity around the motives of the people surrounding Nasar before his death. Marquez uses this ambiguity to prove that a large part of Nasar’s death can be attributed to the strange mixture of emotions that people have when confronted with something like murder-- much like the emotions faced by those who failed to call police as Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death.
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez proposes a theme of the consequences of assumptions. Marquez says that, “Someone...had shoved an envelope under the door with a piece of paper warning Santiago Nasar that the were waiting for him to kill him” (15). Whoever did this assumed that Santiago would see the note on the floor and be warned, but didn't take into account the possibility that he would step over it. Instead of anonymity, this mysterious person could have easily knocked on the door and warned Santiago directly, so their assumption directly affected the outcome of events. On page 17, Clotilde Armenta says that, “it was a breath of the Holy Spirit”, referring to her plea that the Vicario brothers wait until after the bishop leaves to kill him. She is assuming here that her simple request to postpone the murder has somehow altered what the outcome will be. Assuming that God or the Holy Spirit had taken it into his own hands let Clotilde think she did all that she could to help the situation. But she had seen him the morning of his murder and didn't even think about walking across the street to warn him. On pages 21 and 22, Don Lázaro Aponte and Father Carmen Amador both agree upon the assumption that, “it had all been a fib”, because, “it seemed impossible to all that he hadn't [been warned]”. Their simple assumption that he already knew what was coming, as well as their subtle apathy in thinking someone else had the duty to warn him, consequently allowed Santiago Nasar to be tracked down and killed without warning. So obviously the assumptions of the people in the community allowed the murder to go off without a hitch. You know what they say about assuming……;)
In the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses an interesting way in foreshadowing Santiago Nasar’s death. Marquez foreshadows Nasar’s death in a vague way but at the same time, meaning that death is inevitable. In writing this, Marquez meant that Nasar’s death was inevitable and no matter what anyone did, “Someone who was never identified had shoved an envelope under the door with a piece of paper warning Santiago Nasar that they were waiting for him to kill him, and, in addition, the note revealed the place, the motive, and other quite precise details of the plot. The message was on the floor when Santiago Nasar left home, but he didn’t see it,...” (15), no one could prevent the killing of Santiago Nasar. It is as if all of the things that Nasar did that day, could not prevent the inevitable, even if people did try to warn him of what was going to happen. It is interesting to know that so many people knew, beforehand, of Nasar’s killing but did nothing to try and stop the Vicario brothers or get Nasar to safety to prevent him from being killed. The Vicario had advertised and told so many people about their plan to kill Nasar as if saying, “Come get me, police. We are going to kill someone”. But, still, no one did nothing to try and stop it. Some people did try to warn Nasar about what the Vicario brothers were going to do to him but didn’t try hard enough and when the opportunity disappeared to tell Nasar, they just forgot about it. It is kind of like the story about Kitty Genovese. People had heard her and seen her stabbed the first time but did nothing to help her; didn’t try and call the police or call an ambulance, and just went back to bed as if nothing was wrong.
In “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” Marquez chooses to narrate the novel in a very peculiar way that stands out from other mysteries. The fact that the readers know what is going to happen before it actually does, takes away from the common foreshadowing that is usually in a traditional mystery. Since lots of people knew that the men were going to kill Santiago and no one acted on what they had heard, I think that fact alone pushed Marquez to write the novel in a sense where the readers also knew what was happening so that it simulated the feeling of the people in the novel. Throughout the chapter, there is many examples of how the people around Santiago knew about the men that wanted to kill him. On page 13, the narrator explains how Victoria Guzman knew about the killing and the actual place where it was going to happen, but thought nothing of it. I think that since all the information about this planned murder is so obvious and widely spread that people just thought nothing of it and began to soon ignore it. To add onto the obviousness and plotting of the murder, the men slept in the streets where they planned on killing Santiago with knives that were noticeable and not attempted to be hidden. So the fact that people knew about this and saw proof leading up to the murder leads to magical realism. The people around were not willing to help or warn Santiago because they thought it was “too good to be true” or in this case “too bad to be true”. This leads practically everyone to look past the real problem. And because not one single person thought it was worthwhile to help, everyone just went along with the flow of others which resulted in the murder actually happening.
In Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the narration is what caught my attention the most for this novel. The story is narrated in first person, but it gets weird as the unnamed narrator of the story acts as if he is omnipotent and has the story almost seem like it's narrated in 3rd person. He makes this omnipotent tone as he not only tells the story in retrospective fashion, but he also makes insights into some of the character’s minds. The narrator does this several times as he talks about how people feel, and what they were thinking, which is not a regular human ability. Some examples include him knowing how Victoria Guzman felt after being raped by Ibrahim Nasser, the feelings of Santiago Nasser to take the actions he did, and him distinguishing the people that knew or did not know Nasser was to be killed. This seemingly strange ability of the human narrator of the story, would then imply that he may be making assumptions rather than truly knowing all the facts. Although the narrator does include some actual quotes/dialogue from some characters talking, he frequently adds in his own opinions and still tries to assume all the events that happened over the course of the day. To audience members that do not pay much attention to the narrator actually being a human character in the book that doesn't know all the facts he may even seem objective and factual. By considering the actual facts of the narrator and analyzing what he has to say, I think there is some doubt and fallacy in his assumptions and this may recur in the novel.
I think it is cool that you brought up this point early on in the novel and it did in fact come up more or less later in the novel. Towards the beginning of Chapter 5, we learn that the narrator found much of his information from a nearly 30 year old court brief. This brief is badly damaged, as only 322 of 500 pages survive. This made me realize that much of what the narrator is saying probably is speculation as the information he gathered on his own was largely peoples retrospective perception of the event, while the information from the time of the crime was largely incomplete.
After reading the first chapter of this novel I researched the reasoning behind why Márquez wrote this novel and to my surprise I saw that this book retells the same event that has actually happened in real life. It says that in Colombia a young medical student, as well as heir to a large fortune, was killed with a knife outside his front door. It is reported that the young man was killed by two brothers of a girl who had been married, but was brought back right to her family because she wasn’t a virgin. The brothers asked their sister who did this act, and when she blames it on the medical student, the two brothers rush up to the man and kill him. As you can see Márquez is basically describing the same incident that happened in this novel. I wonder why Márquez chose to write a novel on this dark concept. I also seemed to realize after reading chapter one was that this novel is supposed to be mystery. I came to this conclusion because unlike most books where they have the character die in the end, this book begins on the day that Nasar’s murder and everyone is aware that he is going to die. I found it silly how the novel was titled Chronicle of a Death Foretold because a chronicle is supposed to tell the events in chronological order, however it is seen that the actual ending of the novel is seen at the very beginning. I wonder why Márquez set up the book that way and I’m pondering over the message that Márquez is trying to send to us. Hopefully my doubts will clear in the upcoming chapters.
I thought it was really awesome that you did some research about this book! It had never occurred to me that Marquez could be writing based on a specific murder and that many of the events in the book happened in real life. To answer your question, I think that Marquez wrote this novel as a social commentary. There are many societal questions that can be asked about the events in the book. An example of this is: are the people that did nothing to stop the murder guilty for the crime also? Plus, Marquez can use this topic to express magical realism. Personally, I saw magical realism in the novel through the idea that Santiago was fated to die. There were so many coincidences in the novel that it seems like Marquez wants the readers to believe that no one could have stopped Santiago’s death.
In the second chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses luxury diction and the characterization of Bayardo San Roman and his family to convey the theme that wealth equals power. Marquez describes Roman’s belongings as being luxurious, “He arrived on the weekly boat with some saddlebags decorated with silver that matched the buckle of his belt and the rings on his boots” (Marquez 27). In this time period, the only men that would be wearing boots were the ones that were able to afford them. Most men just wore regular shoes that most men wore. Roman wearing boots among a crowd of shoes was very noticeable. He was also seen wearing, “... a short jacket and very tight trousers, both of natural calfskin,...” (27) Having something that is made from the animal, like leather, in this time period was very expensive. So the only people wearing leather were the wealthy ones, the upper classmen. This just shows how Roman’s clothing and the way he dresses can determine which class he is a part of. When he had gotten off of the boat, no one had a clue who he was or what he was doing there. One person had the courage to ask him and he replied that he was looking for someone to marry. But the way the person described his speaking was interesting, “... he had a way of speaking that served to conceal rather than to reveal” (28). This can just come to show that there is a difference in the language of those who have been educated and those who haven’t been educated. He spoke in a way that everyone found curious and mysterious. The way that Marquez describes Roman’s father is also interesting, “He was wearing a wheat-colored linen suit, high-laced cordovan shoes, and gold-rimmed glasses held by a clasp on the bridge of his nose connected by a chain to a buttonhole in his vest. He wore the Medal of Valor on his lapel and carried a cane with the national shield carved on the pommel” (37). From this passage, the reader can visualize his father dressed up in these wealthy and expensive clothing, noticing that his father is just showing off his wealth and with wealth, comes power. After this, the narrator says, “... for everyone to realize that Bayardo San Roman was going to marry whomever he chose” (37). Because of the wealth of his family, everyone knew that he had a lot of power and was not going to try to mess with him and tell him what he could/could not do. This just shows that the more wealth one’s family has, the more power they have and can do whatever they like.
One thing that really stood out from the third Chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the theme of the bystander and their motivations for not stepping in to a conflict. Marquez shows in the novel that there are two main reasons for bystanders not to step in: apathy and optimism. Marquez shows this as he explains the ineptitude of Pablo and Pedro: “[they] had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him, and they had failed” (56). Here Marquez explains that the brothers had gone about the killing in a way that allowed everyone in the village a chance to do something about it-- and yet they didn’t. This quote makes a strong case that being a bystander is simply an integral part of human nature- if an entire village was given the opportunity to stop the murder of one of its own, but didn't, then who would? Marquez insinuates that apathy must play a role when he writes “Faustino Santos was the only one who perceived a glimmer of truth in Pablo Vicario’s threat, and he asked him jokingly why they had to kill Santiago Nasar” (60). Here we see that even though Faustino knew that the Vicario twins might be serious, he did nothing to dissuade them. His casual, joking nature shows that perhaps he really isn’t concerned with the imminent murder and refuses to take it seriously, despite knowing it may happen. Although he does report it to the police, he more or less ensures that he doesn’t get involved as a result of his apathy. Marquez also shows that some simply didn’t want to believe the Vicario twins could do something horrible when he writes “their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (59). Here Marquez proves that sometimes people’s optimism blinds them to the fact that good people can do horrible things. It is this mixture of apathy and optimism that explains why, in Chapter 3, nobody decides to prevent the most inept murder of all time.
In the third chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the characterization of the Vicario brothers to convey the theme of assumptions. At first when the Vicario brothers started telling people of their plan to kill Santiago Nasar, everyone thought that they were either joking around or too drunk from the wedding to know what they were doing. Having a good and well known reputation throughout this town, no one thought that the Vicario brothers could be about what they were saying, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention” (Marquez 60). Since everybody knows the Vicario brothers and how well-mannered and behaved they are, everybody just assumed that it was drunkard’s talk. There were some people that had some circumspect thoughts about what they were saying. Faustino Santos, the butcher, tells the police officer of the Vicario brothers’ plan of killing Santiago Nasar. The police officer tells Colonel Lazaro Aponte about the brothers’ plans. The Colonel did take away their knives but the brothers just went back home and got more knives. Even though people did try and warn Nasar or people in high authority, those people did not try very hard to stop the brothers. The Colonel made a valid attempt but did not try and do anything afterwards and said that the twins were just bluffing. Clothilde Armenta, the owner of the milk shop, told her husband of the twins’ plans but he said that she was being silly. I think that the Vicario brothers were relying on people’s familiarity of their personalities that no one would do anything to stop them and that’s exactly what happened.
I definitely agree that assumptions killed Santiago Nasar...literally. But I disagree with your analysis that the Vicario brothers didn't want anyone to stop them. In my opinion, they did everything in their power to get someone to stop them. Due to peoples' positive view of the twins, no one took them seriously as much as the twins wanted them to. I feel like they spread the word of their plans to kill Santiago because they knew how wrong and sinful murder is, so they were trying to act honorable, hoping someone would relieve them of the "duty".
The second chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” characterizes Bayardo San Román as an opulent and conceited man which promotes the theme of entitlement among the wealthy. On page 31, Bayardo catches a fleeting glance of Angela Vicario and says to the landlady, “When I wake up, remind me that I am going to marry her.” When Angela finds out about this statement she says that she “was quite startled”. The pages prior are full of excessive praising of his skill, knowledge, and resources (aka money). Obviously Angela is startled by such a weighty yet casual statement because back in those days, courting was an integral part of the marriage process. Bayardo has absolutely no idea who this woman is, except for a face and a name, yet he believes that he has the right and power to claim her as his own without even consulting her parents or herself for that matter. Angela states on the next page that she, “detested conceited men, and [she’d] never seen one so stuck up” (32). This statement occurs right after Bayardo tries to flirt with her and draw her attention by flaunting his wealth like it’s nothing. It seems to me that Bayardo has some sort of internal entitlement, and thinks that his wealth alone will win any woman over that has any sense to her. Ironically, his wealth is what ends up winning over her family. Page 37 describes Bayardo’s father’s outfit when he arrives in the town. The visual imagery characterizes Bayardo’s backstory, allowing the reader to understand that he comes from a very pompous and opulent family, ultimately causing his pomp and pride. After this detailed description, the narrator says, “all he had to do was appear on the running board for everyone to realize that Bayardo San Román was going to marry whomever he chose” (37). This is an obvious display of the theme of the sense of entitlement that comes along with wealth. I'm assuming the citizens of the town are not the most well off, so seeing the father of this strange man all dressed up in rich-man’s garb, gives off the impression that he has more power than others. Not only do riches give people self-entitlement, but others interpret riches as an entitlement to things that poorer people do not deserve. Later, when Bayardo goes to the club to play dominoes with Xius, he persuades him so intensely with his wealth that Xius practically has no choice but to give in. Xius says multiple time that his house is not for sale in any way, but due to his entitlement, Bayardo feels as though he somehow deserves it. He “laid ten bundles of thousand-peso notes with the printed bands of the State Bank still on them” (41). Knowing that money matters so much, Bayardo uses his wealth in a cocky yet persuasive way to manipulate the poor old man.
The thing that stood out the most to me about Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the theme of wealth and its ability to blind people to what is really going on. This theme manifests itself through metaphors. Marquez first explains to the reader that Bayardo San Roman’s great wealth was able to blind Angela’s family to the fact that there was no real connection there that would make Angela happy or constitute a healthy marriage. Marquez writes”her parents and her older sisters... imposed on her the obligation to marry a man whom she had barely seen... The parents’ decisive argument was that a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny” (38). Here we see that Angela has no desire to marry Bayardo, and yet her parents believe that because there is so much money at stake there is no reason for Angela to refuse. Marquez uses a metaphor to compare the marriage to destiny, which proves that Angela’s family was so focused on wealth they believed that only destiny could have brought such great fortune to their lives. As we find out that the marriage will eventually ends as soon as it begins, Marquez shows the reader that wealth alone cannot make a marriage-- it requires mutual commitment. Marquez further develops this theme when he writes “Bayardo San Roman, for his part, must have got married with the illusion of buying happiness with the huge weight of his power and fortune” (42). Here Marquez uses a metaphor to explain that Bayardo essentially believed that by using his vast resources to marry any woman he chose and throw an incredible party to celebrate it, he would find happiness. As Marquez explains, however, this was only an illusion. The great power Bayardo had blinded him to the fact that happiness is something that cannot be achieved through wealth alone. Through these metaphors, Marquez explains to the reader that wealth is not everything-- if not coupled with clear vision, it will serve to blind those involved from the fact that all is not well.
In Chapter two of “The Chronicles of a Death Foretold” Marquez distinctly shows the gender inequality in this time period and setting. It is obvious that the men have an extreme amount of influence on the women. For example, Angela Vicario was forced to marry Bayardo San Roman after only four short months because of her family’s expectations mixed with Bayardo San Roman’s “urgings”. Many people knew that she was not in love with Bayardo San Roman during their engagement. However, that didn’t mean much. The narrator states, “Angela Vicario only dared hint at the inconvenience of a lack of love, but her mother demolished it with a single phrase: ‘Love can be learned too’”(38). The dominance that men had over woman was far more influential than the woman’s feelings or word. Even though Angela Vicario had expressed that she had not loved this man she did not wish to marry him, later she was still punished for something that she was forced into to begin with. When Bayardo San Roman came to return her, the narrator explains how he “grabbed her by the arm and brought her into the light”(51). Her mother then figured out what she had done. The word choice displays how the men were superior compared to women because he was able to just grab her by the arm and control her, proving his powerful role in the relationship. At the end of the chapter when her family finds out about what has happened, her brothers ask her who took her virginity and the narrator says, “She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other, and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written”(53). The author uses a metaphor and an analogy to compare a well-aimed dart and how precise her answer was to the question and comparing her to a butterfly who already has an inevitable plan set in place for them. The comparison is necessary to show and explain how she is already in trouble so saying the name won’t make a difference because her sentence has ‘always’ been written from the beginning.
Chapter three of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with the trial of the Vicario brothers in which they both plead innocent due to the fact that Santiago Nasar’s murder was “a matter of honor”(56). In this chapter, the impression is given off that Pablo and Pedro are quite proud of their decision, or duty rather, so they want people to know and talk about it. On page 56, the narrator says that they, “had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him.” This quote seems contradictory to their pridefulness, but I interpret it as their way of changing how the public perceived them. Many times throughout the chapter, characters doubt their claim because they're thought of so highly by so many. In this case, I think the twins are advertising their plans with the intent to receive doubts, so that they may perpetuate their honorable status when they truly go through with it, almost like reverse psychology. Both brothers had doubts about it too, but Pablo Vicario finally says, “There's no way out of this...It’s as if it had already happened” (70). It's apparent at this point that the twins believe this act to be a duty to their sister’s honor, but also to their family name. By spreading the word to every corner of the town, they practically force themselves to do it. Everyone already knows, so backing out now would lose their positive social standing and honorability in the eyes of the community. I find it really interesting that at the beginning of the chapter, the two men go directly to Father Amador after the murder, covered in sweat and blood, to confess their sin, yet, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). I feel like it's somewhat hypocritical to be so prideful in an action, yet know the difference between right and wrong well enough to feel the need to ask God for forgiveness.
In the third chapter of “The Chronicle of a Death Foretold” Marquez characterizes the twins as very determined men. Everyone viewed them as innocent and as men who would never hurt anyone. That is part of the reason that no one paid them any mind when they were talking about killing Santiago. They were very respected and were clearly known to have had a joking or non-serious characteristic to them because people simply brushed off the fact that they consistently repeated how they were going to attempt a murder and many people stated how they seemed as if they were drunk. This shows that they were obviously laid back and it's common for them to speak of such outrageous things. They believed that killing Santiago was acceptable because of the crime he had committed. The narrator states, “‘We kill 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’”(55). This shows how the twins are very bold and dedicated because in their minds they were helping rather than doing any harm. Other people agreed with their act of honor as well. The narrator says, “‘I knew what they were up to,’ she told me, ‘and I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do’”(72). In their society, it showed that an act of honor could overthrow an immoral action such as murdering a person. They went through great extents to prepare to not only kill Santiago, but ‘rip out his guts’. However, this was acceptable because they were doing it for a good reason.
Marquez emphasizes the traditional gender role difference in chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold by juxtaposing how a woman and man should traditionally act. This is most apparent to me when referring to men and women both doing the same action, but getting different responses from society about it. One prime example of this is premarital sex. When a woman, in this case, Angela Vicario supposedly had sex with a man before she married Bayardo she was looked down upon by everybody in society. Not only did her newlywed husband give her back to her mother and leave her, but her mother beats her to the point of near-unconsciousness. When comparing this to a man performing the same action except on a more extreme level, society doesn’t care at all about this. This is clear when the narrator who is soon to be married said “Santiago Nasser and I, with my brother Luis Enrique and Cristo Bedoya went to Maria Alejandrina Cervantes house of mercies”(45). This is a completely huge difference between the perception society has on premarital sex when comparing men and women. The narrator even has a relationship with a woman, and it is not even thought of as dishonoring her if he went to a whorehouse. Clearly it is unfair that a woman is put down by society for doing the same action, and men just continue on living as all they have done was morally nothing bad at all. Ethically this is wrong and unfair, however relatively this is okay and Marquez emphasizes this to the audience, probably hoping we would see it as a social injustice.
I agree with your analysis about premarital sex. If a woman and a man were to do the same crime, only the woman would be judged for it and I think this is because of how society thought of women in this time period. Since women were considered a low human being and having the only importance of making a family, men did not seem to want to take women seriously. And since men weer considered very high and important human beings, no one felt like accusing men of doing anything wrong and if they did, they would seem like the bad guys in that situation. I also agree with your analysis of how Marquez did this to, hopefully, let the audience see this injusticeness of the community and society.
In chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez emphasizes the theme that family honor must be protected and if in the right situation redeemed. What I mean by protected is that nobody could do anything that embarreses the family, or prevents them advancing further in society. When applying this to the Vicario family, their honor couldn’t be protected, because Santiago Nasser prevented the marriage between Bayardo and Angela Vicario, and so as result the family needed to redeem their honor. In order to redeem their honor the family’s twins Pablo and Pedro decided that they must murder Santiago Nasser. Throughout this chapter they go around telling people that they are plotting on killing Santiago Nasser. Some people questioned their motives, and once their motives were discovered their plot to murder was then condoned. Prudencia Cotes, Pablo’s fiancee even took one step further and claimed she wouldn’t have decided to marry Pablo if he were to not protect his family’s honor in this way. On top of that she even assisted them by providing newspapers so that the twins could conceal their weapons of murder. After some time they carry on to complete the task and murder Santiago Nasser, for taking away their younger sister’s virginity and ruining their family honor. Although it may seem absurd that the preservation of honor must be taken so far as to murder somebody, the Vicario twins completely believe what they had done was necessary, In the beginning of the chapter the twins are set in a court trial where they say they were the ones who killed Nasser, but they are innocent, because they needed to protect their family’s honor. Marquez did so much in this chapter to emphasize the theme of preserving one’s family honor, and the duties family members must partake in to fit in appropriately with society.
I agree with your analysis of the severity of preserving one's honor. The Vicario brothers believed that killing Sanitago Nasar was necessary to getting their family's honor back. I don't agree with your analysis of that the Vicario brothers had deemed it priority to killing Nasar as a way of getting their family's honor back. The Vicario brothers had told mostly everyone in the town of their plans to kill Nasar, as if they wanted someone to stop them from doing what they were planning to do. In a way, they were only telling someone this so that that person, or those people, could comfort them and tell them this wasn't the only way. I think the Vicario brothers just wanted someone to guide them and tell them what to do. Since they are the older brothers of Angela, I believe they felt the need to protect their younger sister.
My blog was similar to yours in which we both found that the theme of the novel centered around honor. We all know that the brothers killed Santiago to preserve their family’s honor. Another quote that supported your argument was when Prudencia Cortes doesn’t want to marry Pablo Vicario because his family’s honor was diminished. This is shown by her saying "I never would have married him if he hadn't done what a man should do." (Marquez, 62) Generally many people will go long lengths just to preserve their honor, and this is just one example, they feel that if their family’s honor is threatened then others would judge them. Doesn’t this situation seem like “A Doll’s House?” I thought it like this because during that time if women helped men in any way then people would judge the men, and this relates to the theme of honor because if people found out that Nora aided Torvald, then his reputation would be ruined.
In Chapter two magical realism is portrayed throughout this entire chapter. One example is when Bayardo spots Angela for the first time. “[Bayardo] had been napping in a rocking chair in the parlor... when Angela Vicario and her mother crossed the square... Bayardo San Roman half-awoke, saw the two women... and asked who the young one was.”(Marquez, 28). This scene takes place at the start of Bayardo’s journey to win Angela’s heart over, so that she will become his wife, as well as Angela’s misfortunate to marry Bayardo, which doesn’t end well at all. Magical Realism plays a massive role in this scene because it suggests “love at first sight” for Bayardo. I came to this conclusion because as Angela and her mother strolled by his window, he woke up right away. This indicates that Angela’s beauty caused him to immediately wake up and gave him the suggestion that this woman would be the “perfect” woman for me. Another example of magical realism is when the narrator’s mother comments about Bayardo’s incredible swimming ability. The narrator said “One Sunday after mass he challenged the most skillful swimmers, who were many, and left the bets behind by twenty strokes in crossing the river back. My mother told me about it in a letter, and at the end she made a comment that was very much liker her: “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold.” (29) This contributes to magical realism because she describes Bayardo as an extremely handsome man who was highly proficient in anything he did like swimming. Also the comment she makes about him “swimming in gold” gives us a good indication that he comes from a wealthy family, and that he could afford anything luxurious. Not many people see magical realism portrayed in these scenes, but Marquez adds some interesting details as well as a little twist in order to interest the reader and adds more interest to the story and makes it seem like a sad story.
In chapter three I noticed right away that it centers mostly around the theme of the novel which was honor. Marquez portrays this when she describes the brothers attacking Santiago. We know that the brothers are angry at him because he was the one responsible for causing their sister to lose her virginity. When their sister was brought back to her house when they heard the news, she was mercilessly beaten and with that her honor was shattered. So in order to preserve her honor, they overreact and decide to kill him. Also many others like Prudencia Cortes refuses to marry Pablo Vicario because their family is losing their honor. She conveys this by saying "I never would have married him if he hadn't done what a man should do." (Marquez, 62) I noticed from these two scenes that human nature is selfish towards themselves. I came to this conclusion because people will go long distances in order to save their lives or their reputation and not lose their honor. During this time it seemed that honor was a big focus, and that if an incident associated with your family then people will judge you. This also relates to A Doll’s House because also Torvald during that time was concerned over what people thought of him whenever a problem occurred regarding him, and both the brothers of Angela and Torvald both want to make sure that they are both regarded as high-class people and that they would do anything to make sure that they were viewed the same as before.
I also agree that there was a lot of examples of human nature showing how selfish the towns people were. People didn't realize at the time that they were pretty much helping contribute to Santiago Nasar's murder, and I think the author does a good job of presenting this because even though it is an extreme case, it isn't uncommon for people to easily look past what they are being told if it doesn't involve them. I also think that the theme of honor was overpowered by the theme of guilt because in later in the book when the Vicario brothers are in jail it mentions how they were comforted by their act of honor, but couldn't seem to escape "the smell" or their feelings of guilt. Along with the brothers, all of the towns people also smelt Santiago, which shows how even with the feeling of having done their honor, guilt was always present.
In chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Santiago Nasar's death is compared to that of Jesus Christ through simile and visual imagery. Toward the beginning of the chapter, the narrator is describing the autopsy and the extent of the physical damage done to Santiago by the Vicario brothers. On page 87, he states that, “the thoracic cavity showed two perforations: one in the second right rib space that affected the lung”. Jesus was crucified with two other men, whose legs were broken by soldiers in order to finish them off. When the soldiers came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they didn't break his legs, but “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34). Jesus was also stabbed in his right side, and this happened because the Bible states earlier that “They will look on the one they have pierced” (Zech. 12:10). These prophetic words relate to the theme in the novel of how large a role fate plays in the lives of the characters because they believe that everything is foreseen and out of their control, including Santiago’s death. The visual imagery in this quote allows the reader to understand the parallels in the wounds. Another example is that Jesus was nailed to His crucifix through the centers of His hands, and Santiago Nasar, “had a deep stab in the right hand” (87). Because of these things, Santiago’s autopsy report stated in simile that, “it looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (87). I find the word “stigma” in this quote interesting because by medical definition, the word “stigma” means ‘a place or point on the skin that bleeds’, which is obvious. At the same time, by general definition it means ‘a mark of disgrace or infamy’, suggesting the resemblance of Santiago’s death to that of Jesus Christ is a reproach to the honor that Jesus died for due to the lack of honor that Santiago died for.
I also thought it was interesting that Santiago's wounds were described in a way that related them to the wounds of Crucifixion. I had a different interpretation of the word stigma in this passage. Oftentimes the word stigma is used when a person has wounds resembling that of Jesus-- there have been historical examples of Catholic saints who claim to have one day woken up with a stigma that inspired them to serve the church. The first time I read this passage I thought of it more as a way to identify Nasar with Jesus, perhaps to show that Nasar was in fact innocent and was the victim of a crime of jealousy much like Jesus.
I completely agree with your analysis in how Santiago’s death is compared to Jesus. I also liked how you showed evidence regarding how Marquez portrays this using similes as well as visual imagery. Another quote that relates to your point is “The two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn't dare touch him." (Marquez, 102). Santiago represents Jesus as just like how Jesus was killed, Santiago is killed as well despite committing no crime whatsoever. The main purpose behind Santiago’s death is that the Vicario brothers wanted to restore honor back into their family. The characters in the town obviously view honor as more important than Santiago’s life and don’t do anything to prevent his death. Similarly Jesus was betrayed by the Judas for money, and later on it was proven that money was seen as more valuable than life itself. Also Jesus knew that ahead of time that someone would betray him, and similarly everyone knew that Santiago was going to die, even Santiago himself. Both Jesus and Santiago don’t overreact over their death and take their death calmy. Marquez also demonstrates that faith and love have been destroyed by wealth and honor by the quote “After Santiago's death, his friends and neighbours did not mourn him; rather everyone was eager to to off his own important role in the drama." (Marquez, 98). However since Jesus was reborn it shows that hope isn’t lost with people caring about wealth and honor and that this will change eventually. I found it interesting that we both noticed the resemblance of Jesus.
At the end of chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, visual imagery is used in describing the murder in order to give the reader an idea of the grotesque affliction that the Vicario brothers bestowed upon Santiago Nasar. The chapter begins with the narrator explaining bits and pieces of the recovered briefing which was written shortly after the tragedy. He describes the judge’s margin notes metaphorically as having been “written in blood” (116), which gives the reader an initial sense of the heinous murder to be described later in the chapter. As the vicious act began, Pablo Vicario, “gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt” (139). Visually, one can imagine what this would have looked like as his bright red blood spread wider and wider over his clean white coat. I think it’s interesting that the author specified that the blood was “under high pressure”. It makes sense partly because right before the quote, Pedro Vicario claimed that his knife came out clean after three stabs. But, in my opinion, the author added this in order to play off of the fact that everyone knew it was going to happen, hence the word “foretold” in title. Therefore, the pressure being released is not only his blood being spilled, but this fatal attraction finally playing out after such mounting tension. As the carnage continued, it seemed to the twins that Santiago simply would not fall and die, so, “Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it” (141). Comparing the event to a pig slaughter shows not only the extent of the twins’ level of knowledge and comfort with killing living creatures, but also speaks to how they viewed Santiago, as nothing more than a pig, who deserved a pig’s death. A few sentences later, “Pablo Vicario gave him a horizontal slash on the stomach, and all his intestines exploded out” (141). Honestly, this is really disgusting, but for good reason. This visual imagery allows the reader to understand the magnitude of the slaughtering that took place, and give an idea of just how determined they were to bring Santiago what he “deserved”.
In the fourth chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the death of Santiago Nasar to create a tragic and nauseating dominant effect while conveying the theme of how assumptions affect others. No one really knows what death can do to people until they experience it, somehow, in their life. In this chapter, the reader gets a very descriptive illustration of Nasar’s autopsy. It is learned that Father Carmen Amador had to end up doing the autopsy, accompanied by a druggist and a first-year medical student on vacation, since Dr. Dionisio Iguaran’s location was unknown. Nasar’s autopsy was not a pretty one. The narrator describes it as being a “massacre” because of all the incisions made on Nasar’s body. The Vicario brothers had stabbed Nasar over and over, even when they knew he was dead.. During the autopsy, ‘The liver was almost sliced in pieces… He had four incisions in the stomach… and destroyed, the pancreas. He had six other, lesser perforations… and multiple wounds in the small intestine. The only one he had in the back,... had perforated the right kidney. The abdominal cavity was filled with large clots of blood,... The thoracic cavity showed two perforations:... He also had six minor wounds on his arms and hands, and two horizontal cuts,... The report says, “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ”’ (Marquez 86-87). Just reading the description of the autopsy is gut-churning. From all of the wounds, the reader is informed of how much the Vicario brothers had wanted Nasar dead, because of one little lie that Angela Vicario had told her mother. After Nasar’s death, many people were devastated. It was as if the whole town had died with Nasar; everything was different. The Vicario brothers had gone to jail and the rest of the Vicarios had moved away. Because of everyone’s assumptions, everyone had a little blame for Nasar’s death, ‘... a death for which we all could have been to blame” (94). Even though the Vicario brothers did do the executing, everyone could have had a chance to warn Nasar and many did try, but did not try that hard, and many others did not even try to warn him.
I agree with how assumptions affect others. All of the town's people were caught up on the assumption that the Vicario brothers could never hurt or murder a person. It was so surreal for everyone and that was the reason that no one ever decided to stop or decently attempt to stop the brothers. Afterwards, they mentioned how they the whole town smelt of Santiago and that was definetely a main symbol after his death because it showed how the towns people were all guilty. Even though they didn't preform any wrong actions they still felt the as guilty as if they did simply because no one gave an effort to help.
In chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the lie that Angela Vicario had told her mother to convey a theme of how lies can affect others. After Angela Vicario had told her mother that Nasar had “taken” her virginity, her mother was furious. She did not even think that this could be a lie. Of course, if one’s mother finds out that a man had taken her virginity, her daughter will not actually tell their mother the real person that did it. This lie had led to the death of Santiago Nasar and Angela Vicario would have to live with knowing the fact that she was responsible for the death of Nasar. This lie did not just affect Nasar by him dying, but it created a problem between him and his fiancee. His fiancee, Flora Miguel, was infuriated when she had heard the news about Nasar taking Angela’s virginity because, then, Nasar would have to marry Angela to give back her honor. This “little” lie ruined the relationship between Flora Miguel and Nasar. They were to be married, either arranged or they fell in love, they had created a special connection between the two. And now that this lie had gotten out, this connection had disappeared. This lie did not just affect Nasar but it affected others that were a part of Nasar’s life.
Chapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the first chapter to delve extensively into the aftermath of the murder. Marquez uses hyperbole to enhance the theme that illusions and facades serve only to create more problems that those which they are meant to cover up. We first see an example of the negative side of facades when Marquez writes, “[they] were wailing loudly with such high- pitched shrieks that they seemed to be shouts of joy... distress like theirs could only be put on in order to hide other, greater shames” (98). Here, Marquez uses hyperbole to characterize the way in which the San Roman family is mourning as so extreme that it is almost ridiculous. This creates an effect of deceit which helps explain why the narrator sees their mourning as a facade that they are putting up to prevent people from seeing deeper, underlying problems. Marquez does this to show the reader that a facade is often, when examined closer, a rather ridiculous way to try to alleviate a problem because they allow problems to grow unseen. He later proves the benefits of eliminating these facades exposing flaws so that they can be fixed. He writes, “She had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life, but the daughter herself had brought her plans to naught because she never made any mystery out of her misfortune” (103). By using a hyperbole, Marquez once again shows how terrible problems can be when a society is too focused on appearances: because Angela didn’t put up a facade to hide her “lack of honor” she was beaten. However, Marquez goes on to prove that once Angela admitted that she was miserable, and opened up to the world with her sorrow she was able to solve her problems in very real ways and grow as a person until she could withstand the worst kinds of torture imaginable from her own mother. Marquez uses hyperbole in Chapter 4 to illustrate the danger of facades and emphasis on appearance in society.
In Chapter 5, the final, gory details of Santiago Nasar’s death are revealed. Marquez uses the motif of dehumanization and metaphor to create a dominant effect of horror while revealing that by dehumanizing Santiago, the villagers and the twins were able to absolve themselves of their guilt for the tragedy of the death of Santiago Nasar. Marquez reveals the level to which the Santiago is dehumanized before he is killed when he writes, “Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out the moan of a calf, and tried to turn his back to them...” (139). Here, Marquez dehumanizes Santiago by claiming that his cries were calf- like. As the whole village looks on, Santiago is heard moaning like a beast in the act of being slaughtered. Marquez uses this gruesome image to show the reader that not only did Santiago face dehumanization from the twins, but from all the villagers who heard his cry. Later on Marquez insinuates that this dehumanization is what gave the Vicario twins the confidence to kill Santiago, and that it absolved everyone involved of their guilt. He writes, “They both kept on knifing him against the door with alternate and easy stabs, floating in the dazzling backwater they had found on the other side of fear. they didn't hear the shouts of the whole town, frightened by its own crime” ((140). Marquez makes it clear that the twins had finally worked up the courage to actually kill Santiago after all the struggle because once they dehumanized him enough to kill him, they were able to “float” through the rest of their task. Marquez proves to the reader that if we stop thinking of others as humans, we will be able to commit and allow atrocities more easily.
In chapter four of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the Vicario brothers characterization is changed by the use of repetition and visual imagery. While the brothers were in jail for murdering Santiago, his ‘smell’ kept on coming back in different parts throughout the chapter. Pedro Vicario explained, “‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell’”(90). It explains later how they had gone nights on end without sleep because as soon as they would try and fall asleep they would “commit the crime all over again”(90). The ‘smell’ characterizes the twins by their constant obsession with it as well as their reaction to it. The smell of Santiago is not actually there, but in their heads. It shows how they are clearly guilty of the crime that they have committed, even though they thought that their actions were justifiable and honorable. The brothers were both characterized differently in the previous chapters of the book. They were portrayed as frightening, formulated and very certain of the action that they were going to commit, which were very deceptive traits considering they are now characterized as weak and moronic. This is because they were so positive that killing Santiago was the right thing to do after pondering the idea for only a little bit of time, and now they can’t get over what they have done. If they had thought through their plan before hand, they would have known that they were not the type of men who would be able to live with murdering another. They would have known that if their actions were truly acceptable they would not be feeling such guilt such as thy are because they would have known that it was for a good cause.
I agree with your analysis of the smell and how it's only an illusion the twins have created in their heads. I also think that it's a symbol of their guilt. I find it almost ironic that they feel such guilt because they were so confident in their decision to kill Santiago that they exclaimed it openly to practically everyone in the community. I'm wondering if they chose to advertise their plans the way they did because they thought that people in the community expected them to take action even if they didn't really want to.
In chapter 4 I immediately noticed how people have dehumanized Santiago and how people were careless and witnessed him dying right in front of them. Even after his death his body is still treated with little respect. One particular example that showcases this is “the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail. (Marquez, 88) I found this quote ironic because I was surprised to see even the priest show the most disrespect towards Santiago by throwing his body parts away like they were garbage. This quote also contributes to the fact that the entire town has dehumanized and has seen him more as an object than an actual human being. This quote is not only ironic because the priest is the one to show the least amount of respect, but also because the characters in the novel value religion and purity, but don’t seem to care about the death of their family and friends. I found it ridiculing that the Vicario Brothers’ punishment for the murder was not harsh. They went to jail for three years, whereas the victim had an eternity of death. This just shows that the society valued honor more because it seemed that killing a man to preserve the town’s honor is more justifiable than sleeping with a virgin before marriage. Another part of this chapter that intrigued me in this chapter was how the town began to care only when a threat was imminent. One quote that supports this is "Colonel Aponte, worried by the rumors, visited the Arabs family by family and at that time, at least, drew a correct conclusion" (Marquez, 94) This quote shows that when they hear a rumor that the Arabs were going to take revenge, they immediately react and try to prevent this from occurring.
I like your observation very much Abhinav. Its very good that you were able to catch detail like that. For me I never considered the thought of why the details of Santiago's autopsy was so explicitly gruesome. As for the second part of your analysis I always tell myself that perhaps the reasons the Vicario brothers have never really been given a real punishment is today's standards is probably, because of the context as to why they committed the crime, and the context of the time that judged them. Although still to me, it is disgusting how humanity dis valued under honor, and that to me is just wrong. I agree with the Marquez portrays it in this way, and through all the subtle clues he uses in this chapter, I find I am able to conclude a reasonable statement of how life is valued in this chapter. You did a really good job on finding these great pieces of evidence, and I hope we both agree on the same conclusion of how valuable life should really be, rather than how it was in the past, or at least in this context.
In the fifth chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” visual imagery, analogy, and animal diction to reveal the gruesome details that were put into effect while the Vicario brothers were killing Santiago. When the boys first meet Santiago at the door of his own home, Pedro explains, “‘I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood”(139). This shows how the murder was certainly over the top and unnecessarily carried out. The first three stabs were fatal and Pedro mentions how he stabbed him ‘at least’ three times. After they have done enough damage to kill Santiago, they are still trying to finish him off because he is still alive. However, the only reason he is still standing is because he was pinned against the door. The narrator explains how the Vicario brothers wanted to finish Santiago off with a stab to the heart. He writes, “trying to finish it once and for all, Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it”(141). The two brothers, having experience with slaughtering pigs were comparing Santiago to a pig not only because they were familiar with pigs, but also because they portrayed Santiago as less because of the crime that he had committed. Therefore, comparing him to an animal far inferior to a man. After the brothers had done far more harm to Santiago than was actually needed to kill him, the narrator explains how he was stumbling his last steps and “‘he even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts”’(143). This just emphasizes the vulgar and gruesome details that went into killing Santiago and the comes to show how the brothers past a certain point where they were just doing more harm to a body that was already dead.
In chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Marquez magnifies the gender bias people have in this novel. This idea really becomes evident when the narrator talks about Bayardo San Roman losing everything. He goes around talking to people and they too believe Bayardo did indeed lose the good life and the townspeople have pity on him. However, Angela Vicario too lost a lot as well. Angela lost her husband who chose to leave her, she lost her honor, and she was even beat by her own mother. Although, despite Angela losing what could be equally if not more than what Bayardo lost, she does not receive any sort of sympathy at all. The narrator then solidifies the idea that Bayardo is the only victim by saying “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman”(83). The narrator then says that Angela did not lose everything, because she was able to regain her honor, which must have been because of what her brothers did, but that does not mean she still does not deserve pity. Not once in this whole chapter has Angela received the slightest touch of sympathy, but characters like Santiago were remembered, the Vicario twins were treated thoughtfully, and Bayardo was tagged the name “Poor Bayardo”. What this chapter has done in a whole was sympathize for the male characters and talk about their outcomes as well as how they were taken care of, but also describes the outcome/hardships of Angela in a complex manner. The complex is that Angela is seen as poor/pitiful by the audience of her hardships, but completely has her hardships ignored in the novel. Because of how certain characters were treated in this chapter it would be safe to claim that there clearly is a gender bias within this novel.
In chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Marquez magnifies the gender bias people have in this novel. This idea really becomes evident when the narrator talks about Bayardo San Roman losing everything. He goes around talking to people and they too believe Bayardo did indeed lose the good life and the townspeople have pity on him. However, Angela Vicario too lost a lot as well. Angela lost her husband who chose to leave her, she lost her honor, and she was even beat by her own mother. Although, despite Angela losing what could be equally if not more than what Bayardo lost, she does not receive any sort of sympathy at all. The narrator then solidifies the idea that Bayardo is the only victim by saying “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman”(83). The narrator then says that Angela did not lose everything, because she was able to regain her honor, which must have been because of what her brothers did, but that does not mean she still does not deserve pity. Not once in this whole chapter has Angela received the slightest touch of sympathy, but characters like Santiago were remembered, the Vicario twins were treated thoughtfully, and Bayardo was tagged the name “Poor Bayardo”. What this chapter has done in a whole was sympathize for the male characters and talk about their outcomes as well as how they were taken care of, but also describes the outcome/hardships of Angela in a complex manner. The complex is that Angela is seen as poor/pitiful by the audience of her hardships, but completely has her hardships ignored in the novel. Because of how certain characters were treated in this chapter it would be safe to claim that there clearly is a gender bias within this novel.
After reading chapter 1 my first initial feelings towards Santiago were just like how the characters in the novel felt towards him which was they dehumanized him. When I found out that he died I wasn’t very shocked as I thought that he actually committed a crime against the Vicarios and felt less pitiful towards him. However after reading chapter 5 one quote got my attention and made me have second thoughts on Santiago. “The victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence”(Marquez, 118). This quote made me change my mind on him because it confused me whether Angela was telling the truth the entire time. Another quote that supports this is “Nevertheless, what had alarmed him most at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong”(Marquez, 117).Based on the thoughts of the Judge and Angela not giving any specifics on the situation made me jump to the conclusion that Angela was lying that she lost her virginity so that she wouldn’t have to marry Bayardo. We can assume with this information that the actual cause of death was not done by the brother’s, but actually by Angela herself. I pondered over why did she make up such a big lie, and why target someone as innocent as Santiago? I thought that she blamed Santiago because she put herself in a situation where she had to blame someone on the spot. Her choosing Santiago could be for two reasons, one would be that because since Santiago is a person who doesn’t do anything, he wouldn’t get killed. She also could have chosen him because she didn’t know him that well, so if Santiago were to die then it wouldn’t be a huge deal to her because of the experience that she had with him.
(I actually posted this on March. 6th, but I made the mistake of posting chapter 4 twice) In chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez presents to the audience that what they read about the murder is not certainly true, and includes doubt. This is where the significance of the narrator’s position once again reminds the audience that he too is only human and rather than being omnipotent, all of his information derives from sources that may or may not be true. Also, as the narrator is a human being, he possesses a bias for his friend Santiago Nasser. This becomes most clear when he expresses himself to believe Santiago to being truly innocent by saying “My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death”(101). The importance of this bias that the narrator possesses could shift the story in subliminal subtle ways the audience would have never noticed. For an example, Cristo Bedoya who is thought to be part of Santiago’s close friend group was thought of as the only one to take any actual action to try and help Santiago, but this could possibly be false, because the narrator may merely just be trying to make his friend look like a hero, Marquez tries to tell the audience to not trust everything even though it may seem true, because he all authors are humans, and humans all have flaws no matter how objective they may try to be. I believe this was Marquez’s purpose for portraying the narrator in this way.
Chapter 1 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is very atypical as far as the usual crime novels are concerned. In this chapter, the motive, method, location, perpetrators, and circumstances of the crime are all revealed. Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses an interesting mix of foreshadowing and ambiguity to show the reader that Nasar’s death is preventable, yet at the same time inevitable. This seemingly contradictory statement is yet another element of the novel that makes it an example of magical realism, as contradictory elements are blended in a way that manages to make sense to the reader. Marquez uses vague dialogues to foreshadow the fact that Santiago Nasar will die. Nasar himself says “‘that’s what my wedding is going to be like,’ he said. ‘Life will be too short for people to tell about it’”(20). Nasar’s quote is cryptic-- it could be interpreted as saying that other people will have more to say about his wedding than can be said in one lifetime, or it could be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the fact that Nasar’s life will be too short for people to get the chance to speak of his wedding. The fact that his death is foreshadowed is very strange-- the reader already knows Nasar is going to day. Marquez uses the added vague foreshadowing to drive home the point that Nasar’s death is inevitable, as he constantly reminds the reader that it is imminent. Later, Marquez writes “nevertheless, Divina Flor confessed to me on a later visit...(her mother) wanted them to kill him”(13). Here Marquez contradicts his earlier statement that Victoria Guzman didn't believe in the rumor of Nasar’s death. This contradiction creates an ambiguity around the motives of the people surrounding Nasar before his death. Marquez uses this ambiguity to prove that a large part of Nasar’s death can be attributed to the strange mixture of emotions that people have when confronted with something like murder-- much like the emotions faced by those who failed to call police as Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death.
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez proposes a theme of the consequences of assumptions. Marquez says that, “Someone...had shoved an envelope under the door with a piece of paper warning Santiago Nasar that the were waiting for him to kill him” (15). Whoever did this assumed that Santiago would see the note on the floor and be warned, but didn't take into account the possibility that he would step over it. Instead of anonymity, this mysterious person could have easily knocked on the door and warned Santiago directly, so their assumption directly affected the outcome of events. On page 17, Clotilde Armenta says that, “it was a breath of the Holy Spirit”, referring to her plea that the Vicario brothers wait until after the bishop leaves to kill him. She is assuming here that her simple request to postpone the murder has somehow altered what the outcome will be. Assuming that God or the Holy Spirit had taken it into his own hands let Clotilde think she did all that she could to help the situation. But she had seen him the morning of his murder and didn't even think about walking across the street to warn him. On pages 21 and 22, Don Lázaro Aponte and Father Carmen Amador both agree upon the assumption that, “it had all been a fib”, because, “it seemed impossible to all that he hadn't [been warned]”. Their simple assumption that he already knew what was coming, as well as their subtle apathy in thinking someone else had the duty to warn him, consequently allowed Santiago Nasar to be tracked down and killed without warning. So obviously the assumptions of the people in the community allowed the murder to go off without a hitch. You know what they say about assuming……;)
ReplyDeleteIn the first chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses an interesting way in foreshadowing Santiago Nasar’s death. Marquez foreshadows Nasar’s death in a vague way but at the same time, meaning that death is inevitable. In writing this, Marquez meant that Nasar’s death was inevitable and no matter what anyone did, “Someone who was never identified had shoved an envelope under the door with a piece of paper warning Santiago Nasar that they were waiting for him to kill him, and, in addition, the note revealed the place, the motive, and other quite precise details of the plot. The message was on the floor when Santiago Nasar left home, but he didn’t see it,...” (15), no one could prevent the killing of Santiago Nasar. It is as if all of the things that Nasar did that day, could not prevent the inevitable, even if people did try to warn him of what was going to happen. It is interesting to know that so many people knew, beforehand, of Nasar’s killing but did nothing to try and stop the Vicario brothers or get Nasar to safety to prevent him from being killed. The Vicario had advertised and told so many people about their plan to kill Nasar as if saying, “Come get me, police. We are going to kill someone”. But, still, no one did nothing to try and stop it. Some people did try to warn Nasar about what the Vicario brothers were going to do to him but didn’t try hard enough and when the opportunity disappeared to tell Nasar, they just forgot about it. It is kind of like the story about Kitty Genovese. People had heard her and seen her stabbed the first time but did nothing to help her; didn’t try and call the police or call an ambulance, and just went back to bed as if nothing was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” Marquez chooses to narrate the novel in a very peculiar way that stands out from other mysteries. The fact that the readers know what is going to happen before it actually does, takes away from the common foreshadowing that is usually in a traditional mystery. Since lots of people knew that the men were going to kill Santiago and no one acted on what they had heard, I think that fact alone pushed Marquez to write the novel in a sense where the readers also knew what was happening so that it simulated the feeling of the people in the novel. Throughout the chapter, there is many examples of how the people around Santiago knew about the men that wanted to kill him. On page 13, the narrator explains how Victoria Guzman knew about the killing and the actual place where it was going to happen, but thought nothing of it. I think that since all the information about this planned murder is so obvious and widely spread that people just thought nothing of it and began to soon ignore it. To add onto the obviousness and plotting of the murder, the men slept in the streets where they planned on killing Santiago with knives that were noticeable and not attempted to be hidden. So the fact that people knew about this and saw proof leading up to the murder leads to magical realism. The people around were not willing to help or warn Santiago because they thought it was “too good to be true” or in this case “too bad to be true”. This leads practically everyone to look past the real problem. And because not one single person thought it was worthwhile to help, everyone just went along with the flow of others which resulted in the murder actually happening.
ReplyDeleteIn Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the narration is what caught my attention the most for this novel. The story is narrated in first person, but it gets weird as the unnamed narrator of the story acts as if he is omnipotent and has the story almost seem like it's narrated in 3rd person. He makes this omnipotent tone as he not only tells the story in retrospective fashion, but he also makes insights into some of the character’s minds. The narrator does this several times as he talks about how people feel, and what they were thinking, which is not a regular human ability. Some examples include him knowing how Victoria Guzman felt after being raped by Ibrahim Nasser, the feelings of Santiago Nasser to take the actions he did, and him distinguishing the people that knew or did not know Nasser was to be killed. This seemingly strange ability of the human narrator of the story, would then imply that he may be making assumptions rather than truly knowing all the facts. Although the narrator does include some actual quotes/dialogue from some characters talking, he frequently adds in his own opinions and still tries to assume all the events that happened over the course of the day. To audience members that do not pay much attention to the narrator actually being a human character in the book that doesn't know all the facts he may even seem objective and factual. By considering the actual facts of the narrator and analyzing what he has to say, I think there is some doubt and fallacy in his assumptions and this may recur in the novel.
ReplyDeleteI think it is cool that you brought up this point early on in the novel and it did in fact come up more or less later in the novel. Towards the beginning of Chapter 5, we learn that the narrator found much of his information from a nearly 30 year old court brief. This brief is badly damaged, as only 322 of 500 pages survive. This made me realize that much of what the narrator is saying probably is speculation as the information he gathered on his own was largely peoples retrospective perception of the event, while the information from the time of the crime was largely incomplete.
DeleteAfter reading the first chapter of this novel I researched the reasoning behind why Márquez wrote this novel and to my surprise I saw that this book retells the same event that has actually happened in real life. It says that in Colombia a young medical student, as well as heir to a large fortune, was killed with a knife outside his front door. It is reported that the young man was killed by two brothers of a girl who had been married, but was brought back right to her family because she wasn’t a virgin. The brothers asked their sister who did this act, and when she blames it on the medical student, the two brothers rush up to the man and kill him. As you can see Márquez is basically describing the same incident that happened in this novel. I wonder why Márquez chose to write a novel on this dark concept. I also seemed to realize after reading chapter one was that this novel is supposed to be mystery. I came to this conclusion because unlike most books where they have the character die in the end, this book begins on the day that Nasar’s murder and everyone is aware that he is going to die. I found it silly how the novel was titled Chronicle of a Death Foretold because a chronicle is supposed to tell the events in chronological order, however it is seen that the actual ending of the novel is seen at the very beginning. I wonder why Márquez set up the book that way and I’m pondering over the message that Márquez is trying to send to us. Hopefully my doubts will clear in the upcoming chapters.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really awesome that you did some research about this book! It had never occurred to me that Marquez could be writing based on a specific murder and that many of the events in the book happened in real life. To answer your question, I think that Marquez wrote this novel as a social commentary. There are many societal questions that can be asked about the events in the book. An example of this is: are the people that did nothing to stop the murder guilty for the crime also? Plus, Marquez can use this topic to express magical realism. Personally, I saw magical realism in the novel through the idea that Santiago was fated to die. There were so many coincidences in the novel that it seems like Marquez wants the readers to believe that no one could have stopped Santiago’s death.
DeleteIn the second chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses luxury diction and the characterization of Bayardo San Roman and his family to convey the theme that wealth equals power. Marquez describes Roman’s belongings as being luxurious, “He arrived on the weekly boat with some saddlebags decorated with silver that matched the buckle of his belt and the rings on his boots” (Marquez 27). In this time period, the only men that would be wearing boots were the ones that were able to afford them. Most men just wore regular shoes that most men wore. Roman wearing boots among a crowd of shoes was very noticeable. He was also seen wearing, “... a short jacket and very tight trousers, both of natural calfskin,...” (27) Having something that is made from the animal, like leather, in this time period was very expensive. So the only people wearing leather were the wealthy ones, the upper classmen. This just shows how Roman’s clothing and the way he dresses can determine which class he is a part of. When he had gotten off of the boat, no one had a clue who he was or what he was doing there. One person had the courage to ask him and he replied that he was looking for someone to marry. But the way the person described his speaking was interesting, “... he had a way of speaking that served to conceal rather than to reveal” (28). This can just come to show that there is a difference in the language of those who have been educated and those who haven’t been educated. He spoke in a way that everyone found curious and mysterious. The way that Marquez describes Roman’s father is also interesting, “He was wearing a wheat-colored linen suit, high-laced cordovan shoes, and gold-rimmed glasses held by a clasp on the bridge of his nose connected by a chain to a buttonhole in his vest. He wore the Medal of Valor on his lapel and carried a cane with the national shield carved on the pommel” (37). From this passage, the reader can visualize his father dressed up in these wealthy and expensive clothing, noticing that his father is just showing off his wealth and with wealth, comes power. After this, the narrator says, “... for everyone to realize that Bayardo San Roman was going to marry whomever he chose” (37). Because of the wealth of his family, everyone knew that he had a lot of power and was not going to try to mess with him and tell him what he could/could not do. This just shows that the more wealth one’s family has, the more power they have and can do whatever they like.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really stood out from the third Chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the theme of the bystander and their motivations for not stepping in to a conflict. Marquez shows in the novel that there are two main reasons for bystanders not to step in: apathy and optimism. Marquez shows this as he explains the ineptitude of Pablo and Pedro: “[they] had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him, and they had failed” (56). Here Marquez explains that the brothers had gone about the killing in a way that allowed everyone in the village a chance to do something about it-- and yet they didn’t. This quote makes a strong case that being a bystander is simply an integral part of human nature- if an entire village was given the opportunity to stop the murder of one of its own, but didn't, then who would? Marquez insinuates that apathy must play a role when he writes “Faustino Santos was the only one who perceived a glimmer of truth in Pablo Vicario’s threat, and he asked him jokingly why they had to kill Santiago Nasar” (60). Here we see that even though Faustino knew that the Vicario twins might be serious, he did nothing to dissuade them. His casual, joking nature shows that perhaps he really isn’t concerned with the imminent murder and refuses to take it seriously, despite knowing it may happen. Although he does report it to the police, he more or less ensures that he doesn’t get involved as a result of his apathy. Marquez also shows that some simply didn’t want to believe the Vicario twins could do something horrible when he writes “their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention to them” (59). Here Marquez proves that sometimes people’s optimism blinds them to the fact that good people can do horrible things. It is this mixture of apathy and optimism that explains why, in Chapter 3, nobody decides to prevent the most inept murder of all time.
ReplyDeleteIn the third chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the characterization of the Vicario brothers to convey the theme of assumptions. At first when the Vicario brothers started telling people of their plan to kill Santiago Nasar, everyone thought that they were either joking around or too drunk from the wedding to know what they were doing. Having a good and well known reputation throughout this town, no one thought that the Vicario brothers could be about what they were saying, “Their reputation as good people was so well-founded that no one paid any attention” (Marquez 60). Since everybody knows the Vicario brothers and how well-mannered and behaved they are, everybody just assumed that it was drunkard’s talk. There were some people that had some circumspect thoughts about what they were saying. Faustino Santos, the butcher, tells the police officer of the Vicario brothers’ plan of killing Santiago Nasar. The police officer tells Colonel Lazaro Aponte about the brothers’ plans. The Colonel did take away their knives but the brothers just went back home and got more knives. Even though people did try and warn Nasar or people in high authority, those people did not try very hard to stop the brothers. The Colonel made a valid attempt but did not try and do anything afterwards and said that the twins were just bluffing. Clothilde Armenta, the owner of the milk shop, told her husband of the twins’ plans but he said that she was being silly. I think that the Vicario brothers were relying on people’s familiarity of their personalities that no one would do anything to stop them and that’s exactly what happened.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that assumptions killed Santiago Nasar...literally. But I disagree with your analysis that the Vicario brothers didn't want anyone to stop them. In my opinion, they did everything in their power to get someone to stop them. Due to peoples' positive view of the twins, no one took them seriously as much as the twins wanted them to. I feel like they spread the word of their plans to kill Santiago because they knew how wrong and sinful murder is, so they were trying to act honorable, hoping someone would relieve them of the "duty".
DeleteThe second chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” characterizes Bayardo San Román as an opulent and conceited man which promotes the theme of entitlement among the wealthy. On page 31, Bayardo catches a fleeting glance of Angela Vicario and says to the landlady, “When I wake up, remind me that I am going to marry her.” When Angela finds out about this statement she says that she “was quite startled”. The pages prior are full of excessive praising of his skill, knowledge, and resources (aka money). Obviously Angela is startled by such a weighty yet casual statement because back in those days, courting was an integral part of the marriage process. Bayardo has absolutely no idea who this woman is, except for a face and a name, yet he believes that he has the right and power to claim her as his own without even consulting her parents or herself for that matter. Angela states on the next page that she, “detested conceited men, and [she’d] never seen one so stuck up” (32). This statement occurs right after Bayardo tries to flirt with her and draw her attention by flaunting his wealth like it’s nothing. It seems to me that Bayardo has some sort of internal entitlement, and thinks that his wealth alone will win any woman over that has any sense to her. Ironically, his wealth is what ends up winning over her family. Page 37 describes Bayardo’s father’s outfit when he arrives in the town. The visual imagery characterizes Bayardo’s backstory, allowing the reader to understand that he comes from a very pompous and opulent family, ultimately causing his pomp and pride. After this detailed description, the narrator says, “all he had to do was appear on the running board for everyone to realize that Bayardo San Román was going to marry whomever he chose” (37). This is an obvious display of the theme of the sense of entitlement that comes along with wealth. I'm assuming the citizens of the town are not the most well off, so seeing the father of this strange man all dressed up in rich-man’s garb, gives off the impression that he has more power than others. Not only do riches give people self-entitlement, but others interpret riches as an entitlement to things that poorer people do not deserve. Later, when Bayardo goes to the club to play dominoes with Xius, he persuades him so intensely with his wealth that Xius practically has no choice but to give in. Xius says multiple time that his house is not for sale in any way, but due to his entitlement, Bayardo feels as though he somehow deserves it. He “laid ten bundles of thousand-peso notes with the printed bands of the State Bank still on them” (41). Knowing that money matters so much, Bayardo uses his wealth in a cocky yet persuasive way to manipulate the poor old man.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out the most to me about Chapter 2 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the theme of wealth and its ability to blind people to what is really going on. This theme manifests itself through metaphors. Marquez first explains to the reader that Bayardo San Roman’s great wealth was able to blind Angela’s family to the fact that there was no real connection there that would make Angela happy or constitute a healthy marriage. Marquez writes”her parents and her older sisters... imposed on her the obligation to marry a man whom she had barely seen... The parents’ decisive argument was that a family dignified by modest means had no right to disdain that prize of destiny” (38). Here we see that Angela has no desire to marry Bayardo, and yet her parents believe that because there is so much money at stake there is no reason for Angela to refuse. Marquez uses a metaphor to compare the marriage to destiny, which proves that Angela’s family was so focused on wealth they believed that only destiny could have brought such great fortune to their lives. As we find out that the marriage will eventually ends as soon as it begins, Marquez shows the reader that wealth alone cannot make a marriage-- it requires mutual commitment. Marquez further develops this theme when he writes “Bayardo San Roman, for his part, must have got married with the illusion of buying happiness with the huge weight of his power and fortune” (42). Here Marquez uses a metaphor to explain that Bayardo essentially believed that by using his vast resources to marry any woman he chose and throw an incredible party to celebrate it, he would find happiness. As Marquez explains, however, this was only an illusion. The great power Bayardo had blinded him to the fact that happiness is something that cannot be achieved through wealth alone. Through these metaphors, Marquez explains to the reader that wealth is not everything-- if not coupled with clear vision, it will serve to blind those involved from the fact that all is not well.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter two of “The Chronicles of a Death Foretold” Marquez distinctly shows the gender inequality in this time period and setting. It is obvious that the men have an extreme amount of influence on the women. For example, Angela Vicario was forced to marry Bayardo San Roman after only four short months because of her family’s expectations mixed with Bayardo San Roman’s “urgings”. Many people knew that she was not in love with Bayardo San Roman during their engagement. However, that didn’t mean much. The narrator states, “Angela Vicario only dared hint at the inconvenience of a lack of love, but her mother demolished it with a single phrase: ‘Love can be learned too’”(38). The dominance that men had over woman was far more influential than the woman’s feelings or word. Even though Angela Vicario had expressed that she had not loved this man she did not wish to marry him, later she was still punished for something that she was forced into to begin with. When Bayardo San Roman came to return her, the narrator explains how he “grabbed her by the arm and brought her into the light”(51). Her mother then figured out what she had done. The word choice displays how the men were superior compared to women because he was able to just grab her by the arm and control her, proving his powerful role in the relationship. At the end of the chapter when her family finds out about what has happened, her brothers ask her who took her virginity and the narrator says, “She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other, and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written”(53). The author uses a metaphor and an analogy to compare a well-aimed dart and how precise her answer was to the question and comparing her to a butterfly who already has an inevitable plan set in place for them. The comparison is necessary to show and explain how she is already in trouble so saying the name won’t make a difference because her sentence has ‘always’ been written from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteChapter three of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” begins with the trial of the Vicario brothers in which they both plead innocent due to the fact that Santiago Nasar’s murder was “a matter of honor”(56). In this chapter, the impression is given off that Pablo and Pedro are quite proud of their decision, or duty rather, so they want people to know and talk about it. On page 56, the narrator says that they, “had done much more than could be imagined to have someone to stop them from killing him.” This quote seems contradictory to their pridefulness, but I interpret it as their way of changing how the public perceived them. Many times throughout the chapter, characters doubt their claim because they're thought of so highly by so many. In this case, I think the twins are advertising their plans with the intent to receive doubts, so that they may perpetuate their honorable status when they truly go through with it, almost like reverse psychology. Both brothers had doubts about it too, but Pablo Vicario finally says, “There's no way out of this...It’s as if it had already happened” (70). It's apparent at this point that the twins believe this act to be a duty to their sister’s honor, but also to their family name. By spreading the word to every corner of the town, they practically force themselves to do it. Everyone already knows, so backing out now would lose their positive social standing and honorability in the eyes of the community. I find it really interesting that at the beginning of the chapter, the two men go directly to Father Amador after the murder, covered in sweat and blood, to confess their sin, yet, “the priest recalled the surrender as an act of great dignity” (55). I feel like it's somewhat hypocritical to be so prideful in an action, yet know the difference between right and wrong well enough to feel the need to ask God for forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteIn the third chapter of “The Chronicle of a Death Foretold” Marquez characterizes the twins as very determined men. Everyone viewed them as innocent and as men who would never hurt anyone. That is part of the reason that no one paid them any mind when they were talking about killing Santiago. They were very respected and were clearly known to have had a joking or non-serious characteristic to them because people simply brushed off the fact that they consistently repeated how they were going to attempt a murder and many people stated how they seemed as if they were drunk. This shows that they were obviously laid back and it's common for them to speak of such outrageous things. They believed that killing Santiago was acceptable because of the crime he had committed. The narrator states, “‘We kill 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’”(55). This shows how the twins are very bold and dedicated because in their minds they were helping rather than doing any harm. Other people agreed with their act of honor as well. The narrator says, “‘I knew what they were up to,’ she told me, ‘and I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do’”(72). In their society, it showed that an act of honor could overthrow an immoral action such as murdering a person. They went through great extents to prepare to not only kill Santiago, but ‘rip out his guts’. However, this was acceptable because they were doing it for a good reason.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarquez emphasizes the traditional gender role difference in chapter two of Chronicle of a Death Foretold by juxtaposing how a woman and man should traditionally act. This is most apparent to me when referring to men and women both doing the same action, but getting different responses from society about it. One prime example of this is premarital sex. When a woman, in this case, Angela Vicario supposedly had sex with a man before she married Bayardo she was looked down upon by everybody in society. Not only did her newlywed husband give her back to her mother and leave her, but her mother beats her to the point of near-unconsciousness. When comparing this to a man performing the same action except on a more extreme level, society doesn’t care at all about this. This is clear when the narrator who is soon to be married said “Santiago Nasser and I, with my brother Luis Enrique and Cristo Bedoya went to Maria Alejandrina Cervantes house of mercies”(45). This is a completely huge difference between the perception society has on premarital sex when comparing men and women. The narrator even has a relationship with a woman, and it is not even thought of as dishonoring her if he went to a whorehouse. Clearly it is unfair that a woman is put down by society for doing the same action, and men just continue on living as all they have done was morally nothing bad at all. Ethically this is wrong and unfair, however relatively this is okay and Marquez emphasizes this to the audience, probably hoping we would see it as a social injustice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis about premarital sex. If a woman and a man were to do the same crime, only the woman would be judged for it and I think this is because of how society thought of women in this time period. Since women were considered a low human being and having the only importance of making a family, men did not seem to want to take women seriously. And since men weer considered very high and important human beings, no one felt like accusing men of doing anything wrong and if they did, they would seem like the bad guys in that situation. I also agree with your analysis of how Marquez did this to, hopefully, let the audience see this injusticeness of the community and society.
DeleteIn chapter three of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Marquez emphasizes the theme that family honor must be protected and if in the right situation redeemed. What I mean by protected is that nobody could do anything that embarreses the family, or prevents them advancing further in society. When applying this to the Vicario family, their honor couldn’t be protected, because Santiago Nasser prevented the marriage between Bayardo and Angela Vicario, and so as result the family needed to redeem their honor. In order to redeem their honor the family’s twins Pablo and Pedro decided that they must murder Santiago Nasser. Throughout this chapter they go around telling people that they are plotting on killing Santiago Nasser. Some people questioned their motives, and once their motives were discovered their plot to murder was then condoned. Prudencia Cotes, Pablo’s fiancee even took one step further and claimed she wouldn’t have decided to marry Pablo if he were to not protect his family’s honor in this way. On top of that she even assisted them by providing newspapers so that the twins could conceal their weapons of murder. After some time they carry on to complete the task and murder Santiago Nasser, for taking away their younger sister’s virginity and ruining their family honor. Although it may seem absurd that the preservation of honor must be taken so far as to murder somebody, the Vicario twins completely believe what they had done was necessary, In the beginning of the chapter the twins are set in a court trial where they say they were the ones who killed Nasser, but they are innocent, because they needed to protect their family’s honor. Marquez did so much in this chapter to emphasize the theme of preserving one’s family honor, and the duties family members must partake in to fit in appropriately with society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the severity of preserving one's honor. The Vicario brothers believed that killing Sanitago Nasar was necessary to getting their family's honor back. I don't agree with your analysis of that the Vicario brothers had deemed it priority to killing Nasar as a way of getting their family's honor back. The Vicario brothers had told mostly everyone in the town of their plans to kill Nasar, as if they wanted someone to stop them from doing what they were planning to do. In a way, they were only telling someone this so that that person, or those people, could comfort them and tell them this wasn't the only way. I think the Vicario brothers just wanted someone to guide them and tell them what to do. Since they are the older brothers of Angela, I believe they felt the need to protect their younger sister.
DeleteMy blog was similar to yours in which we both found that the theme of the novel centered around honor. We all know that the brothers killed Santiago to preserve their family’s honor. Another quote that supported your argument was when Prudencia Cortes doesn’t want to marry Pablo Vicario because his family’s honor was diminished. This is shown by her saying "I never would have married him if he hadn't done what a man should do." (Marquez, 62) Generally many people will go long lengths just to preserve their honor, and this is just one example, they feel that if their family’s honor is threatened then others would judge them. Doesn’t this situation seem like “A Doll’s House?” I thought it like this because during that time if women helped men in any way then people would judge the men, and this relates to the theme of honor because if people found out that Nora aided Torvald, then his reputation would be ruined.
DeleteIn Chapter two magical realism is portrayed throughout this entire chapter. One example is when Bayardo spots Angela for the first time. “[Bayardo] had been napping in a rocking chair in the parlor... when Angela Vicario and her mother crossed the square... Bayardo San Roman half-awoke, saw the two women... and asked who the young one was.”(Marquez, 28). This scene takes place at the start of Bayardo’s journey to win Angela’s heart over, so that she will become his wife, as well as Angela’s misfortunate to marry Bayardo, which doesn’t end well at all. Magical Realism plays a massive role in this scene because it suggests “love at first sight” for Bayardo. I came to this conclusion because as Angela and her mother strolled by his window, he woke up right away. This indicates that Angela’s beauty caused him to immediately wake up and gave him the suggestion that this woman would be the “perfect” woman for me. Another example of magical realism is when the narrator’s mother comments about Bayardo’s incredible swimming ability. The narrator said “One Sunday after mass he challenged the most skillful swimmers, who were many, and left the bets behind by twenty strokes in crossing the river back. My mother told me about it in a letter, and at the end she made a comment that was very much liker her: “It also seems that he’s swimming in gold.” (29) This contributes to magical realism because she describes Bayardo as an extremely handsome man who was highly proficient in anything he did like swimming. Also the comment she makes about him “swimming in gold” gives us a good indication that he comes from a wealthy family, and that he could afford anything luxurious. Not many people see magical realism portrayed in these scenes, but Marquez adds some interesting details as well as a little twist in order to interest the reader and adds more interest to the story and makes it seem like a sad story.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter three I noticed right away that it centers mostly around the theme of the novel which was honor. Marquez portrays this when she describes the brothers attacking Santiago. We know that the brothers are angry at him because he was the one responsible for causing their sister to lose her virginity. When their sister was brought back to her house when they heard the news, she was mercilessly beaten and with that her honor was shattered. So in order to preserve her honor, they overreact and decide to kill him. Also many others like Prudencia Cortes refuses to marry Pablo Vicario because their family is losing their honor. She conveys this by saying "I never would have married him if he hadn't done what a man should do." (Marquez, 62) I noticed from these two scenes that human nature is selfish towards themselves. I came to this conclusion because people will go long distances in order to save their lives or their reputation and not lose their honor. During this time it seemed that honor was a big focus, and that if an incident associated with your family then people will judge you. This also relates to A Doll’s House because also Torvald during that time was concerned over what people thought of him whenever a problem occurred regarding him, and both the brothers of Angela and Torvald both want to make sure that they are both regarded as high-class people and that they would do anything to make sure that they were viewed the same as before.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that there was a lot of examples of human nature showing how selfish the towns people were. People didn't realize at the time that they were pretty much helping contribute to Santiago Nasar's murder, and I think the author does a good job of presenting this because even though it is an extreme case, it isn't uncommon for people to easily look past what they are being told if it doesn't involve them. I also think that the theme of honor was overpowered by the theme of guilt because in later in the book when the Vicario brothers are in jail it mentions how they were comforted by their act of honor, but couldn't seem to escape "the smell" or their feelings of guilt. Along with the brothers, all of the towns people also smelt Santiago, which shows how even with the feeling of having done their honor, guilt was always present.
DeleteIn chapter 4 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, Santiago Nasar's death is compared to that of Jesus Christ through simile and visual imagery. Toward the beginning of the chapter, the narrator is describing the autopsy and the extent of the physical damage done to Santiago by the Vicario brothers. On page 87, he states that, “the thoracic cavity showed two perforations: one in the second right rib space that affected the lung”. Jesus was crucified with two other men, whose legs were broken by soldiers in order to finish them off. When the soldiers came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they didn't break his legs, but “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34). Jesus was also stabbed in his right side, and this happened because the Bible states earlier that “They will look on the one they have pierced” (Zech. 12:10). These prophetic words relate to the theme in the novel of how large a role fate plays in the lives of the characters because they believe that everything is foreseen and out of their control, including Santiago’s death. The visual imagery in this quote allows the reader to understand the parallels in the wounds. Another example is that Jesus was nailed to His crucifix through the centers of His hands, and Santiago Nasar, “had a deep stab in the right hand” (87). Because of these things, Santiago’s autopsy report stated in simile that, “it looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ” (87). I find the word “stigma” in this quote interesting because by medical definition, the word “stigma” means ‘a place or point on the skin that bleeds’, which is obvious. At the same time, by general definition it means ‘a mark of disgrace or infamy’, suggesting the resemblance of Santiago’s death to that of Jesus Christ is a reproach to the honor that Jesus died for due to the lack of honor that Santiago died for.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting that Santiago's wounds were described in a way that related them to the wounds of Crucifixion. I had a different interpretation of the word stigma in this passage. Oftentimes the word stigma is used when a person has wounds resembling that of Jesus-- there have been historical examples of Catholic saints who claim to have one day woken up with a stigma that inspired them to serve the church. The first time I read this passage I thought of it more as a way to identify Nasar with Jesus, perhaps to show that Nasar was in fact innocent and was the victim of a crime of jealousy much like Jesus.
DeleteI completely agree with your analysis in how Santiago’s death is compared to Jesus. I also liked how you showed evidence regarding how Marquez portrays this using similes as well as visual imagery. Another quote that relates to your point is “The two friends were walking in the center of it without any difficulty, inside an empty circle, because everyone knew Santiago Nasar was about to die and they didn't dare touch him." (Marquez, 102). Santiago represents Jesus as just like how Jesus was killed, Santiago is killed as well despite committing no crime whatsoever. The main purpose behind Santiago’s death is that the Vicario brothers wanted to restore honor back into their family. The characters in the town obviously view honor as more important than Santiago’s life and don’t do anything to prevent his death. Similarly Jesus was betrayed by the Judas for money, and later on it was proven that money was seen as more valuable than life itself. Also Jesus knew that ahead of time that someone would betray him, and similarly everyone knew that Santiago was going to die, even Santiago himself. Both Jesus and Santiago don’t overreact over their death and take their death calmy. Marquez also demonstrates that faith and love have been destroyed by wealth and honor by the quote “After Santiago's death, his friends and neighbours did not mourn him; rather everyone was eager to to off his own important role in the drama." (Marquez, 98). However since Jesus was reborn it shows that hope isn’t lost with people caring about wealth and honor and that this will change eventually. I found it interesting that we both noticed the resemblance of Jesus.
DeleteAt the end of chapter 5 of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, visual imagery is used in describing the murder in order to give the reader an idea of the grotesque affliction that the Vicario brothers bestowed upon Santiago Nasar. The chapter begins with the narrator explaining bits and pieces of the recovered briefing which was written shortly after the tragedy. He describes the judge’s margin notes metaphorically as having been “written in blood” (116), which gives the reader an initial sense of the heinous murder to be described later in the chapter. As the vicious act began, Pablo Vicario, “gave him the only stab in the back and a spurt of blood under high pressure soaked his shirt” (139). Visually, one can imagine what this would have looked like as his bright red blood spread wider and wider over his clean white coat. I think it’s interesting that the author specified that the blood was “under high pressure”. It makes sense partly because right before the quote, Pedro Vicario claimed that his knife came out clean after three stabs. But, in my opinion, the author added this in order to play off of the fact that everyone knew it was going to happen, hence the word “foretold” in title. Therefore, the pressure being released is not only his blood being spilled, but this fatal attraction finally playing out after such mounting tension. As the carnage continued, it seemed to the twins that Santiago simply would not fall and die, so, “Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it” (141). Comparing the event to a pig slaughter shows not only the extent of the twins’ level of knowledge and comfort with killing living creatures, but also speaks to how they viewed Santiago, as nothing more than a pig, who deserved a pig’s death. A few sentences later, “Pablo Vicario gave him a horizontal slash on the stomach, and all his intestines exploded out” (141).
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this is really disgusting, but for good reason. This visual imagery allows the reader to understand the magnitude of the slaughtering that took place, and give an idea of just how determined they were to bring Santiago what he “deserved”.
In the fourth chapter of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the death of Santiago Nasar to create a tragic and nauseating dominant effect while conveying the theme of how assumptions affect others. No one really knows what death can do to people until they experience it, somehow, in their life. In this chapter, the reader gets a very descriptive illustration of Nasar’s autopsy. It is learned that Father Carmen Amador had to end up doing the autopsy, accompanied by a druggist and a first-year medical student on vacation, since Dr. Dionisio Iguaran’s location was unknown. Nasar’s autopsy was not a pretty one. The narrator describes it as being a “massacre” because of all the incisions made on Nasar’s body. The Vicario brothers had stabbed Nasar over and over, even when they knew he was dead.. During the autopsy, ‘The liver was almost sliced in pieces… He had four incisions in the stomach… and destroyed, the pancreas. He had six other, lesser perforations… and multiple wounds in the small intestine. The only one he had in the back,... had perforated the right kidney. The abdominal cavity was filled with large clots of blood,... The thoracic cavity showed two perforations:... He also had six minor wounds on his arms and hands, and two horizontal cuts,... The report says, “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ”’ (Marquez 86-87). Just reading the description of the autopsy is gut-churning. From all of the wounds, the reader is informed of how much the Vicario brothers had wanted Nasar dead, because of one little lie that Angela Vicario had told her mother. After Nasar’s death, many people were devastated. It was as if the whole town had died with Nasar; everything was different. The Vicario brothers had gone to jail and the rest of the Vicarios had moved away. Because of everyone’s assumptions, everyone had a little blame for Nasar’s death, ‘... a death for which we all could have been to blame” (94). Even though the Vicario brothers did do the executing, everyone could have had a chance to warn Nasar and many did try, but did not try that hard, and many others did not even try to warn him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how assumptions affect others. All of the town's people were caught up on the assumption that the Vicario brothers could never hurt or murder a person. It was so surreal for everyone and that was the reason that no one ever decided to stop or decently attempt to stop the brothers. Afterwards, they mentioned how they the whole town smelt of Santiago and that was definetely a main symbol after his death because it showed how the towns people were all guilty. Even though they didn't preform any wrong actions they still felt the as guilty as if they did simply because no one gave an effort to help.
DeleteIn chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Marquez uses the lie that Angela Vicario had told her mother to convey a theme of how lies can affect others. After Angela Vicario had told her mother that Nasar had “taken” her virginity, her mother was furious. She did not even think that this could be a lie. Of course, if one’s mother finds out that a man had taken her virginity, her daughter will not actually tell their mother the real person that did it. This lie had led to the death of Santiago Nasar and Angela Vicario would have to live with knowing the fact that she was responsible for the death of Nasar. This lie did not just affect Nasar by him dying, but it created a problem between him and his fiancee. His fiancee, Flora Miguel, was infuriated when she had heard the news about Nasar taking Angela’s virginity because, then, Nasar would have to marry Angela to give back her honor. This “little” lie ruined the relationship between Flora Miguel and Nasar. They were to be married, either arranged or they fell in love, they had created a special connection between the two. And now that this lie had gotten out, this connection had disappeared. This lie did not just affect Nasar but it affected others that were a part of Nasar’s life.
ReplyDeleteChapter 4 of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is the first chapter to delve extensively into the aftermath of the murder. Marquez uses hyperbole to enhance the theme that illusions and facades serve only to create more problems that those which they are meant to cover up. We first see an example of the negative side of facades when Marquez writes, “[they] were wailing loudly with such high- pitched shrieks that they seemed to be shouts of joy... distress like theirs could only be put on in order to hide other, greater shames” (98). Here, Marquez uses hyperbole to characterize the way in which the San Roman family is mourning as so extreme that it is almost ridiculous. This creates an effect of deceit which helps explain why the narrator sees their mourning as a facade that they are putting up to prevent people from seeing deeper, underlying problems. Marquez does this to show the reader that a facade is often, when examined closer, a rather ridiculous way to try to alleviate a problem because they allow problems to grow unseen. He later proves the benefits of eliminating these facades exposing flaws so that they can be fixed. He writes, “She had gone beyond what was possible to make Angela Vicario die in life, but the daughter herself had brought her plans to naught because she never made any mystery out of her misfortune” (103). By using a hyperbole, Marquez once again shows how terrible problems can be when a society is too focused on appearances: because Angela didn’t put up a facade to hide her “lack of honor” she was beaten. However, Marquez goes on to prove that once Angela admitted that she was miserable, and opened up to the world with her sorrow she was able to solve her problems in very real ways and grow as a person until she could withstand the worst kinds of torture imaginable from her own mother. Marquez uses hyperbole in Chapter 4 to illustrate the danger of facades and emphasis on appearance in society.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 5, the final, gory details of Santiago Nasar’s death are revealed. Marquez uses the motif of dehumanization and metaphor to create a dominant effect of horror while revealing that by dehumanizing Santiago, the villagers and the twins were able to absolve themselves of their guilt for the tragedy of the death of Santiago Nasar. Marquez reveals the level to which the Santiago is dehumanized before he is killed when he writes, “Santiago Nasar twisted after the third stab, his arms crossed over his stomach, let out the moan of a calf, and tried to turn his back to them...” (139). Here, Marquez dehumanizes Santiago by claiming that his cries were calf- like. As the whole village looks on, Santiago is heard moaning like a beast in the act of being slaughtered. Marquez uses this gruesome image to show the reader that not only did Santiago face dehumanization from the twins, but from all the villagers who heard his cry. Later on Marquez insinuates that this dehumanization is what gave the Vicario twins the confidence to kill Santiago, and that it absolved everyone involved of their guilt. He writes, “They both kept on knifing him against the door with alternate and easy stabs, floating in the dazzling backwater they had found on the other side of fear. they didn't hear the shouts of the whole town, frightened by its own crime” ((140). Marquez makes it clear that the twins had finally worked up the courage to actually kill Santiago after all the struggle because once they dehumanized him enough to kill him, they were able to “float” through the rest of their task. Marquez proves to the reader that if we stop thinking of others as humans, we will be able to commit and allow atrocities more easily.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter four of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold”, the Vicario brothers characterization is changed by the use of repetition and visual imagery. While the brothers were in jail for murdering Santiago, his ‘smell’ kept on coming back in different parts throughout the chapter. Pedro Vicario explained, “‘No matter how much I scrubbed with soap and rags, I couldn’t get rid of the smell’”(90). It explains later how they had gone nights on end without sleep because as soon as they would try and fall asleep they would “commit the crime all over again”(90). The ‘smell’ characterizes the twins by their constant obsession with it as well as their reaction to it. The smell of Santiago is not actually there, but in their heads. It shows how they are clearly guilty of the crime that they have committed, even though they thought that their actions were justifiable and honorable. The brothers were both characterized differently in the previous chapters of the book. They were portrayed as frightening, formulated and very certain of the action that they were going to commit, which were very deceptive traits considering they are now characterized as weak and moronic. This is because they were so positive that killing Santiago was the right thing to do after pondering the idea for only a little bit of time, and now they can’t get over what they have done. If they had thought through their plan before hand, they would have known that they were not the type of men who would be able to live with murdering another. They would have known that if their actions were truly acceptable they would not be feeling such guilt such as thy are because they would have known that it was for a good cause.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the smell and how it's only an illusion the twins have created in their heads. I also think that it's a symbol of their guilt. I find it almost ironic that they feel such guilt because they were so confident in their decision to kill Santiago that they exclaimed it openly to practically everyone in the community. I'm wondering if they chose to advertise their plans the way they did because they thought that people in the community expected them to take action even if they didn't really want to.
DeleteIn chapter 4 I immediately noticed how people have dehumanized Santiago and how people were careless and witnessed him dying right in front of them. Even after his death his body is still treated with little respect. One particular example that showcases this is “the priest had pulled out the sliced-up intestines by the roots, but in the end he didn’t know what to do with them, and he gave them an angry blessing and threw them into the garbage pail. (Marquez, 88) I found this quote ironic because I was surprised to see even the priest show the most disrespect towards Santiago by throwing his body parts away like they were garbage. This quote also contributes to the fact that the entire town has dehumanized and has seen him more as an object than an actual human being. This quote is not only ironic because the priest is the one to show the least amount of respect, but also because the characters in the novel value religion and purity, but don’t seem to care about the death of their family and friends. I found it ridiculing that the Vicario Brothers’ punishment for the murder was not harsh. They went to jail for three years, whereas the victim had an eternity of death. This just shows that the society valued honor more because it seemed that killing a man to preserve the town’s honor is more justifiable than sleeping with a virgin before marriage. Another part of this chapter that intrigued me in this chapter was how the town began to care only when a threat was imminent. One quote that supports this is "Colonel Aponte, worried by the rumors, visited the Arabs family by family and at that time, at least, drew a correct conclusion" (Marquez, 94) This quote shows that when they hear a rumor that the Arabs were going to take revenge, they immediately react and try to prevent this from occurring.
ReplyDeleteI like your observation very much Abhinav. Its very good that you were able to catch detail like that. For me I never considered the thought of why the details of Santiago's autopsy was so explicitly gruesome. As for the second part of your analysis I always tell myself that perhaps the reasons the Vicario brothers have never really been given a real punishment is today's standards is probably, because of the context as to why they committed the crime, and the context of the time that judged them. Although still to me, it is disgusting how humanity dis valued under honor, and that to me is just wrong. I agree with the Marquez portrays it in this way, and through all the subtle clues he uses in this chapter, I find I am able to conclude a reasonable statement of how life is valued in this chapter. You did a really good job on finding these great pieces of evidence, and I hope we both agree on the same conclusion of how valuable life should really be, rather than how it was in the past, or at least in this context.
DeleteIn the fifth chapter of “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” visual imagery, analogy, and animal diction to reveal the gruesome details that were put into effect while the Vicario brothers were killing Santiago. When the boys first meet Santiago at the door of his own home, Pedro explains, “‘I’d given it to him at least three times and there wasn’t a drop of blood”(139). This shows how the murder was certainly over the top and unnecessarily carried out. The first three stabs were fatal and Pedro mentions how he stabbed him ‘at least’ three times. After they have done enough damage to kill Santiago, they are still trying to finish him off because he is still alive. However, the only reason he is still standing is because he was pinned against the door. The narrator explains how the Vicario brothers wanted to finish Santiago off with a stab to the heart. He writes, “trying to finish it once and for all, Pedro Vicario sought his heart, but he looked for it almost in the armpit, where pigs have it”(141). The two brothers, having experience with slaughtering pigs were comparing Santiago to a pig not only because they were familiar with pigs, but also because they portrayed Santiago as less because of the crime that he had committed. Therefore, comparing him to an animal far inferior to a man. After the brothers had done far more harm to Santiago than was actually needed to kill him, the narrator explains how he was stumbling his last steps and “‘he even took care to brush off the dirt that was stuck to his guts”’(143). This just emphasizes the vulgar and gruesome details that went into killing Santiago and the comes to show how the brothers past a certain point where they were just doing more harm to a body that was already dead.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Marquez magnifies the gender bias people have in this novel. This idea really becomes evident when the narrator talks about Bayardo San Roman losing everything. He goes around talking to people and they too believe Bayardo did indeed lose the good life and the townspeople have pity on him. However, Angela Vicario too lost a lot as well. Angela lost her husband who chose to leave her, she lost her honor, and she was even beat by her own mother. Although, despite Angela losing what could be equally if not more than what Bayardo lost, she does not receive any sort of sympathy at all. The narrator then solidifies the idea that Bayardo is the only victim by saying “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman”(83). The narrator then says that Angela did not lose everything, because she was able to regain her honor, which must have been because of what her brothers did, but that does not mean she still does not deserve pity. Not once in this whole chapter has Angela received the slightest touch of sympathy, but characters like Santiago were remembered, the Vicario twins were treated thoughtfully, and Bayardo was tagged the name “Poor Bayardo”. What this chapter has done in a whole was sympathize for the male characters and talk about their outcomes as well as how they were taken care of, but also describes the outcome/hardships of Angela in a complex manner. The complex is that Angela is seen as poor/pitiful by the audience of her hardships, but completely has her hardships ignored in the novel. Because of how certain characters were treated in this chapter it would be safe to claim that there clearly is a gender bias within this novel.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter four of Chronicle of a Death Foretold Marquez magnifies the gender bias people have in this novel. This idea really becomes evident when the narrator talks about Bayardo San Roman losing everything. He goes around talking to people and they too believe Bayardo did indeed lose the good life and the townspeople have pity on him. However, Angela Vicario too lost a lot as well. Angela lost her husband who chose to leave her, she lost her honor, and she was even beat by her own mother. Although, despite Angela losing what could be equally if not more than what Bayardo lost, she does not receive any sort of sympathy at all. The narrator then solidifies the idea that Bayardo is the only victim by saying “For the immense majority of people there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman”(83). The narrator then says that Angela did not lose everything, because she was able to regain her honor, which must have been because of what her brothers did, but that does not mean she still does not deserve pity. Not once in this whole chapter has Angela received the slightest touch of sympathy, but characters like Santiago were remembered, the Vicario twins were treated thoughtfully, and Bayardo was tagged the name “Poor Bayardo”. What this chapter has done in a whole was sympathize for the male characters and talk about their outcomes as well as how they were taken care of, but also describes the outcome/hardships of Angela in a complex manner. The complex is that Angela is seen as poor/pitiful by the audience of her hardships, but completely has her hardships ignored in the novel. Because of how certain characters were treated in this chapter it would be safe to claim that there clearly is a gender bias within this novel.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 1 my first initial feelings towards Santiago were just like how the characters in the novel felt towards him which was they dehumanized him. When I found out that he died I wasn’t very shocked as I thought that he actually committed a crime against the Vicarios and felt less pitiful towards him. However after reading chapter 5 one quote got my attention and made me have second thoughts on Santiago. “The victim’s very behavior during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence”(Marquez, 118). This quote made me change my mind on him because it confused me whether Angela was telling the truth the entire time. Another quote that supports this is “Nevertheless, what had alarmed him most at the conclusion of his excessive diligence was not having found a single clue, not even the most improbable, that Santiago Nasar had been the cause of the wrong”(Marquez, 117).Based on the thoughts of the Judge and Angela not giving any specifics on the situation made me jump to the conclusion that Angela was lying that she lost her virginity so that she wouldn’t have to marry Bayardo. We can assume with this information that the actual cause of death was not done by the brother’s, but actually by Angela herself. I pondered over why did she make up such a big lie, and why target someone as innocent as Santiago? I thought that she blamed Santiago because she put herself in a situation where she had to blame someone on the spot. Her choosing Santiago could be for two reasons, one would be that because since Santiago is a person who doesn’t do anything, he wouldn’t get killed. She also could have chosen him because she didn’t know him that well, so if Santiago were to die then it wouldn’t be a huge deal to her because of the experience that she had with him.
ReplyDelete(I actually posted this on March. 6th, but I made the mistake of posting chapter 4 twice)
ReplyDeleteIn chapter five of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Gabriel Garcia Marquez presents to the audience that what they read about the murder is not certainly true, and includes doubt. This is where the significance of the narrator’s position once again reminds the audience that he too is only human and rather than being omnipotent, all of his information derives from sources that may or may not be true. Also, as the narrator is a human being, he possesses a bias for his friend Santiago Nasser. This becomes most clear when he expresses himself to believe Santiago to being truly innocent by saying “My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death”(101). The importance of this bias that the narrator possesses could shift the story in subliminal subtle ways the audience would have never noticed. For an example, Cristo Bedoya who is thought to be part of Santiago’s close friend group was thought of as the only one to take any actual action to try and help Santiago, but this could possibly be false, because the narrator may merely just be trying to make his friend look like a hero, Marquez tries to tell the audience to not trust everything even though it may seem true, because he all authors are humans, and humans all have flaws no matter how objective they may try to be. I believe this was Marquez’s purpose for portraying the narrator in this way.