Chronicle

= =

toc =Idea! Argue with it!= 1. Literal Layer 2. Allegorical Layer - the book is a social satire 3. Symbolic layer - Nasar as sacrifice Does thinking about the book in this way help to make sense of it? =Marquez's Style - Your Ideas= "In my opinion, Marquez uses plenty of literary aspects in his writing, which eliminates the chance of the novel being a journalistic work" - Charlotte Van Damme "The way he tells the story and the precise facts and times used in the interviews he (the narrator) has with the characters makes it seem less fictional and more news-like." - Inaki Ortiz "Garcia Marquez's novella can be considered neither journalistic nor fictional.....His style of writing does not conform and cannot be categorized into any specific genre of literature since his narrative styles, themes, symbols and cultural behaviours are all fused together to form both realism and fantasy." - Connie Wang "Marquez cleverly works many aspects of different styles together to create a unique novella that ultimately serves to critique the the society of Latin America....it serves to accentuate the social problems in Latin America, and its disorganized culture, and its pretense." - Dion Loke "I think the use of flashbacks and 'flashforwards' disorientates the reader and that gives it a sense of magical realism, that it (the story) doesn't exist in one time and on one dimension but in separate times and it goes back and forward as you travel through time." - Anika Miller-Cooper "Although he does try to create this (unique) style, I just think of the novella as a long denouement, the ending of a Conan Doyle mystery in which Sherlock Holmes goes through all the events and describes what really happened to a baffled Watson." - Dylan Atkin "The essential theme ..is that the murder might have been prevented if the society they live in, and the village's inhabitants, would have warned the victim on the day of the murder....Now, would that be developed in a newspaper article?" - Andrea Ivarsson Aileen makes an interesting comment reminding us that Marquez states there's nothing magical about the events of the book - in his culture, they are real. Therefore, whether you think the book is 'magical' or not may depend on whether you have Latin American blood! "In my opinion, the __Chronicle__ consists of more of a literary writing style than journalistic. Although there are aspects of both, to me it seems too 'rich' to be considered fully journalistic." Charlotte Moeyens "In effect Marquez creates his own genre, which can best be described as journalistic fiction. Though a paradox, this description holds the best definition for the novel itself is a paradox. Marquez writes a journalistic report of a murder, but while doing so, he uses various literary techniques." - Joel Lee.

Journalistic elements

 * The narrator has interviewed all the townspeople
 * He includes quotations from them, often introduced by 'said'
 * The narrator is semi-anonymous, in the background
 * The sheer number of characters is because he has interviewed them all
 * Many characters are flat - functional
 * "In this novella Marquez begins the story with presenting the most significant information first, and then gradually gives more and more detail of the events that occurred on the day of Nasar's murder - thereby using journalistic structure." - Janina Engels
 * There are detailed and precise references to time on the day of the murder
 * The characters' full names are always used

**Literary elements**


 * The narrator is personally involved - he can't be objective, and is in fact very biased
 * The narrative style is first person, but omniscient - an unusual combination
 * He uses quotes to add realism - but most people were drunk and the interviews took place 27 years later, so they're not reliable
 * The use of symbolism - "Throughout the story, symbols are constantly used to foreshadow events, or to develop themes and motifs" Anna Kargl
 * The development of themes
 * Patterns of foreshadowing, and the use of flashbacks in the narrative structure
 * Main characters are developed - fleshed out
 * The book satirizes the honor code, racial segregation and social hierarchy of the town
 * Presence of imagery and figurative language
 * Suspense is created by the sense of inevitability. We hurtle towards the murder, fully cognisant of what's coming but helpless to stop it, just like the townspeople. This level of involvement is more similar to a Greek tragedy than a news article.
 * Irony: "It is ironic that Nasar's murder was a brutal and violent as the slaughter of rabbits in the beginning of the book" - Ashley Loh
 * The detailed time references are contrasted with ambiguities concerning weather and setting, which in a more literary way develop themes such as the reliability of memory (Lancelot Ho, summarized)

=**2A's Themes:**=

Culpability/Complicity (Spencer and Teddy)
There were mainly three reasons that the townspeople did not warn Santiago Nasar: 1. Inaction (due to trivial reasons like fear and disbelief in the twins’ claim to kill Santiago Nasar – example: Indalecio Pardo pg-102; Rogelio de la Flor pg-55) 2. Passive/insufficient action: These people only tried to send the message to Santiago Nasar via other people. They did take some action, but the actions were not sufficient to stop the murder. Example: Clotilde Armenta, Faustino Santos, the legal and religious officials (will be elaborated further) 3. Hoping for/ encouraging Santiago Nasar’s murder: Such extreme cases can be found from reactions of Divina Flor (pg 13), Prudencia Cortes and her mother (pg 62). They either hate Santiago Nasar, or justify that the twins’ murder is the revelation of honor. · Many people do feel guilty about Santiago Nasar’s death and undergo psychological damage. Hortensia Baute runs naked in the town market, hallucinating because of the guilt that she feels; Flora Miguel prostitutes herself among the rubber workers; Aura Villeros suffered a spasm of the bladder; Don Rogelio de la Flor saw the body of Santiago Nasar and did not survive the shock. (pg 97) · The townspeople are indeed responsible for the death of Santiago Nasar, because as the descriptions on pg 61 explain, the Vicario brothers were in a rather vulnerable psychological condition and could have stopped their plan of murder if someone persuaded them in an earnest manner. However, no townspeople even tried to persuade Vicario brothers. Therefore, the townspeople are definitely responsible for Santiago Nasar’s death. · Santiago Nasar’s friends merely went to the brothel with Santiago Nasar. Only Christo Bedoya tried to warn Placida Linero right before the murder. Luis Enrique was too drunk to do anything. The location of the narrator is not detected anywhere but the brothel. Indalecio Pardo was too frightened to tell Santiago Nasar anything. Santiago’s mother consoled Santiago by explaining Santiago’s dream in a plausible way, so that made Santiago not alerted at all. Flora Miguel, Santiago’s fiancée, locked up herself in her room and refused Santiago Nasar in. · Colonel Aponte and Officer Pornoy merely confiscated the first knives and stated “no one is arrested just on suspicion.” (pg 57) When he was told that the Vicario brothers got new knives, Colonel Aponte did not care about the news and went in to the social club to play dominoes. (pg 110) With such descriptions, Marquez criticizes how insufficient the law is and how it is doing what it is not supposed to do. **//He also criticizes a social system which appoints such ineffective people to positions of authority, simply because of their race or status. Ms K.//** · Father Amador did not know what to do when he was reported about Vicario brothers’ plan to commit the murder. Everything in his mind was the bishop who did not even bother to visit the town. (pg 70) With such descriptions, Marquez criticizes how clueless the church is in a practical matter. Because there is no substantial evidence of Santiago actually deflowering Angela Vicario, we do not know whether Santiago’s murder is justice or not. But since the narrator hears from Angela Vicario that it was indeed Santiago who took her virginity, it can be argued that Santiago’s murder is justice, due to the rude act Santiago committed without having married her, which //back in the day// would be a crime. //**Please never ever use the expression back in the day again! It's informal and imprecise. Ms K.**// (Legal system satirized?)Father Amador didn’t know how to help, and while Santiago was about to be killed the mayor was playing dominoes with his social club.

VICTIMS (LANCELOT AND JOEL)
Santiago Nasar: -He was considered a “sacrifice” for the sins the town had committed. The townspeople chose not to prevent a murder that could have been stopped. They knew of the motives and the murder beforehand yet did nothing to stop them. In many cultures in the world, knowing the crime beforehand is the same as committing the crime. Thus speaking, the townspeople indirectly “murdered” Santiago Nasar. -Santiago’s death saved Angela Vicario in her shame, for if he did not die, she would forever be known as a dishonor to her family. He also saved Pedro and Pablo because his death fulfilled their duties as protectors of the Vicario family. -His name, Santiago Nasar, has a religious connotation. Santiago means “saint” and that Nasar is a reference to the word” Nazarene”. The word Nazarene is a term used to describe someone who has dedicated their life to God; it is also the place where Jesus was born (ironically Jesus was also a Nazrene in the sense of a dedicated being). -The people of the town chose not to help Santiago Nasar, which is similar to the same way Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed. As Santiago was being killed, the roosters crowed, an exact parallel to Peter’s denial of Christ. -Santiago Nasar was wearing white clothing on the day he was murdered (pg 116). White is associated with the color of cleansing. Snow is white and it cleans the earth of dirt and mud. -The stab on his right hand alludes to the nail wound of the crucifixion of Christ - “It looked like a stigma of the crucified Christ.” (pg75) -Santiago Nasar was killed with sacrificial knives, which gives the feeling of a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter – “the Vicario twins went to the bin in the pigsty where they kept their sacrificial tools and picked out the two best knives” (p50)

Who else was a victim? -Angela Vicario seems to be the victim that no one remembers. She was forced into a marriage that she did not want, and was punished for it - “The only thing that I can remember…I thought she was going to kill me.” (pg 46) -She was pressured into faking her virginity, but chose not to, based on the morality of the situation. Ironically, although she chose the moral choice not to fake her virginity, she was punished for the immoral act of bringing shame onto her family. -As a woman, she had no say in the decision of her marriage. The oppression of her family proved to be another major factor in her victimization. As the oppressed, Angela had no freedom/control over her life and the decisions that led to the events that had occurred - “Love can learned too.” (pg35) -Indirectly, Angela Vicario must take majority of the blame for Santiago Nasar’s death. Due to the fact that her confession of her deflowering by Nasar was known to her family, her brothers had to act upon it and murder him.


 * //I like that you present both sides of the argument for Angela. What about Bayardo? Do you consider him to be a victim?//**

Honor, Machismo and Revenge
Honor is the catalyst for Santiago Nasar’s initial death sentence and it stays till the end, causing the town to allow him to die. Within the story, it is the need to preserve honor, specifically, Angela Vicario’s honor, which drives her brothers to begin the hunt for Nasar. The town puts an extreme amount of value in a person’s honor and thus feels Nasar’s death is justified and thus remains complicit in his murder. Marquez satirizes the honor system in that he leaves clues that the case itself may be flawed. There is no evidence that Nasar even committed a crime, yet the honor system manages to kill him. The honor system is also satirized in that, whoever Angela’s perpetrator may be, he is protected by her and her friends, allowing another man, Nasar, to act as a sacrifice in his place. In the words of Prudencia Cotes, Pablo Vicario’s fiancée, “I knew what they were up to, and I didn’t only agree, I never would have married him if he hadn’t done what a man should do.” (62) This quote serves as proof that, as a victim of machismo, Pablo was expected to preserve his sister’s honor, and thus had no choice but to carry out the slaughter. If Pura Vicario’s efforts were effective, her sons would be the quintessential examples of machismo, models of bravery, virility, chauvinism, and aggression. As cited on page 31, “The brothers were brought up to be men”. This statement, though vague, implies that the society had a definitive idea of what men were to be, thus eliminating the need for elaboration. The courts agree with the twins in saying the murder was an act of necessity, a “homicide in legitimate defense of honor” (48) and the twins claimed, ““We killed him openly,” Pedro Vicario said, “but we’re innocent”” (49). However, the investigating magistrate also had qualms about the legitimacy of the murder, saying that, “//Give me a prejudice and I will move the world.// …the victim’s very behavior during his last hour was overwhelming proof of his innocence.” (100). This quote supports that the twins had committed this crime as a cruel act of revenge. Xius, the widower and owner of the “prettiest house in town” (35), was convinced the spirit of his wife was haunting the house and reclaiming what was hers from Bayardo San Roman, robber of her home. This is another example of revenge in that, immediately, San Roman’s marriage is destroyed, and later on, the house dissipates into pieces.
 * prevalent themes within Chronicle of a Death Foretold: BRENDA AND CHARLOTTE **

Contradictions, Ambiguity, and Memory
There were many characters who recall the weather differently, showing the unreliability of memory. When they gave their testimony about time, it all matched. This shows that there is a possibility that they faked a “testimony” to get the time all correct even after 27 years. People recall the weather as cloudy or sunny on page 8 and 4. This unreliability of their memory in weather makes the reader doubt whether the testimony on time is correct or not. This quotation **//(which quotation? You need to include it please)//** is an example of Marquez’s ambiguous writing style. As Angela is sitting there looking at the butterflies there is the ambiguity of who the real violator is. Memory is confused by the names Márquez chooses for his characters. In //Chronicle of a Death Foretold,// he includes fictional names along with the names of his own mother, Luisa Santiago, and of his own wife, Mercedes Barcha. The inclusion of the names of real people ties the events more strongly to a fixed reality. The narrator has a confused memory of the festival—he remembers proposing to marry Mercedes Barcha as soon as she finished primary school.
 * Terrence and Julien**

"Pedro Vicario, the more forceful of the brothers, picked her up by the waist and sat her on the dining room table. 'All right, girl,' he said to her, trembling with rage, 'tell us who it was.' She only took the time necessary to say the name. She looked for it in the shadows, she found it at first sight among the many, many easily confused names from this world and the other, and she nailed it to the wall with her well-aimed dart, like a butterfly with no will whose sentence has always been written. 'Santiago Nasar,' she said. à  This quote is an example of Marquez’s ambiguous writing. Angela’s search for the butterfly makes the readers think whether or not she got the right person or not.

=4A's Themes:=

Chance/Fate/Contradictions
(Dion & Connie) Chance: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause Fate: an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end, predicted Santiago's death can be viewed as a result of inaction, chance and fate. From different viewpoints, we can tell that the events leading up to his death can be interpreted different. From Nasar’s point of view, his death happens by chance. The narrator’s sister fails to get Nasar into their house for breakfast. If she had managed to do so, his death would have been prevented. It was a series of coincidental events that prevented him from going to the narrator’s house. None of the events could be been expected, at least not by Nasar. Also, by chance, the bishop visits the town, distracting the attention of the town. The failure of the bishop to come ashore lets the town down, and it feels as if Santiago’s death is the ‘new attraction’. Because the bishop came to town, Nasar exits through ‘The Fatal Door’, one that is only used for special occasions. But this ‘special occasion’ turns out to be his death. By chance, he repeatedly misses the note under his door. It was not until after his death that someone finally picks up the note and realizes that the Nasar could have been warned. Also, by chance, Divina mistakenly assumes that Nasar was already in the house, and prompts Placida to lock the front door, which in turn locks both Nasar and the brothers out of the house. For the townspeople, Nasar’s death was not fated. To a certain extent, It was ‘predicted’ by them. While the town knows about the Vicario brothers’ intention to kill Nasar, many simply assumed that it was ‘drunk talk’ and ignored the brothers. Therefore, none of them tries to stop the murder. This collective inaction and dismissal of the brothers’ intention is critiqued by Marquez. There might, however, be a subconscious reason for their inaction. Perhaps to protect Angela’s ‘honor’, Santiago’s death was viewed as inevitable and justified. Perhaps also, the cultural aspect of the book plays a role in the townsfolk believing his death is justified. In a sense, he is a sacrificial object. His death will only serve as a good will to the town. After the death of Nasar, they believe it was fate that led to his death. The narrator presents it as a destiny for Nasar by beginning the chronicle with his death. They do not believe that their inaction was the cause of his death. Or rather, they refuse to believe it and use fate to defend their inaction. Marquez believes that Nasar’s death was determined neither by the unfortunate coincidences nor untimely fate. **Marquez critiques the townsfolk’s belief of Santiago’s death as fate; Marquez critiques this behavior as inaction. //(This is an excellent insight, well done - Ms K)//** The townspeople do little to stop the murder. “Perhaps the very action of calling Santiago’s death ‘a series of coincidences’ is merely a collective purging of conscience.”The overly coincidental nature of his death gives doubt to any true effort was put into preventing Nasar’s death. The note was overlooked. Even though we see real action in preventing his death later in the novella, it did not manage to prevent Nasar’s death. Any action that is too late is also known as if it ‘never happened’.

Culpability/Complicity
Even though the Vicario brothers were the ones who killed Santiago Nasar, the townspeople were also partly to blame. They all depended on others to relay the information to Santiago, in order to relieve themselves of the blame. They had many opportunities to stop the murder from happening yet they acted passively. “Along the way three people stopped him to inform him in secrety that the Vicario brothers were waiting for Santhiago Nasar to kill him, but only one person could tell him where.” (pg 56). For instance, Clotilde Armenta knew what was happening but she never warned Santiago herself, instead she asked others to warn him. “... and she asked all the people she could to warn him when they saw him. She even sent word to Father Amador through the novice on duty, who came to buy milk for the nuns. After four o'clock, when she saw the lights in the kitchen of Placida Linero's house, she sent the last urgent message to Victoria Guzman by the beggar woman who came every day to ask for a little milk in the name of charity.” (pg 58). Cristo Bedoya, Santiago Nasar's best friend, was the only character who took an active role in warning Santiago about the Vicario brothers. The townspeople simply did not care enough to stop the murder from happening. The figure of authority, Colonel Aponte, was supposed to put a stop to the murder, but he did not put forth any effort. “He promised to take care of it at once, but he went into the social club to check on a date for dominoes that night, and when he came out again the crime had already been committed.” (pg109-110). Santiago's fiancee, Flora Miguel, knew that the Vicario brothers were about to kill Santiago, but did not warn him because she was angry. “ “Here you are,” she told him. “And I hope they kill you!” Santiago Nasar was so perplexed that he dropped the chest and his loveless letters poured out onto the floor. He tried to catch Flora Miguel in the bedroom, but she closed the door and threw the bolt.” (pg 113). From this quote, it shows that to take the life of someone is not a big deal and no one in the town took the rumor seriously. It is ironic that Santiago's mother, Placida Linero, was the one who ultimately contributed to his death because she could have prevented the murder at the very last second, but she did not. “From the place where she was standing she could see them but she couldn't see her son, who was running toward the door from a different angle. “I thought they wanted to get in to kill him inside the house,” she told me. Then she ran to the door and slammed it. She was putting up the bar when she heard Santiago Nasar's shouts, and she heard the terrified pounding on the door, but she thought he was upstairs, insulting the Vicario brothers from the balcony in his room. She went up to help him. (pg 117). The townspeople were to blame because of their cultural biases. They all believed that the Vicario brothers did nothing wrong because to them it was an "honor" killing. “ “We killed him openly.” Pablo Vicario said. “It was a matter of honor.”” (pg 49). Santiago Nasar's death was a collaborative murder in which the entire town contributed one way or another.

Ashley Loh, Karen Chik, Janina Engels E//**xcellent work! A well written and throrough summary with great supporting evidence - well done.** **Ms K**//

Victims
· Victims The narrator states “For the vast majority of the town, there was only one victim: Bayardo San Roman.” In the towns of southern America, honor is considered to be a legitimate excuse for violence, duels and is extremely important in Latin American society. When Bayardo finds out that Angela is not a virgin, it is a great dishonor to him, because he has spent a lot of money and effort on the wedding, only to be destroyed by an “unfaithful” wife. Because of this event, Bayardo is publicly embarrassed and loses his honor. This is why the town feels that he is the victim.

· **We consider Santiago Nassar to be the main victim.** This is because he lost his greatest possession: his life. This loss is not seen through society’s eyes, but his own. · The town however does not consider Santiago Nassar to be the victim because it is believed that he was the one who took Angela’s virginity, therefore he is deserved to be killed for his crime in embarrassing Bayardo and the Vicarios.

· Ways that Santiago could be regarded as the ultimate sacrificial victim: o His name: Santiago Nasar or Saint Nazareth or Jesus. Jesus was also a sacrifice, however for the exact opposite reasons. o Santiago wears white o The narrator throughout the book strongly implies that Santiago Nasar is innocent of his crimes, this is displayed by Marquez’s vagueness when describing Nasar, and not saying much of his negative traits, implying he is not a bad man and innocent of his crimes. o There is no clue that he committed the crimes. Therefore he is probably innocent, therefore he is a sacrificial victim o His clothes are white, suggesting innocence. o His father's name is Ibraham. In the bible Abraham has to sacrifice his son to god… o His death is very public and open o No-one/very few attempts to stop the death o 1st blow struck in the stomach. This makes the sacrifice more realistic, and vivid. · Santiago Nassar is sacrificed because the Vicario family is embarrassed because of the Devil’s (Bayardo) rejection of Angela, therefore they kill Nasar. They therefore sacrificed Nasar to the Devil, again showing the corruption in the town. · Santiago is not the victim of the Vicario brothers but of the system. The Vicario brothers had to do it otherwise they would stunk of dishonor. Pablo’s fiancé even goes on to state that she would not marry Pablo if he did not kill Santiago Nasar. Dylan and Akshay :)

//**Some interesting ideas here, well done. There are lots more references that remind us of Jesus's sacrifice, though, and you haven't addressed the most important questions - for what reason was Nasar sacrificed? To whom? And, did his sacrifice benefit the town in any way? Ms K**//

Female Roles
//(Anna and Ragna)// //-//Most of the marriages were of convenience, one of the best examples is Angela and Bayardo, she married a man much ricer than herself, and she also raised his social status by being a beautiful, obedient woman, as well as being an excellent house wife. - Pura Vicario raised her daughters to be "Perfect wives" The qualities they possessed were: Screen embroidery, sewing by machine, weaving bone lace, washing and ironing, making artificial flowers and fancy candy, and writing engagement letters. They also took care of the elderly and sick. Through these qualities, they were "perfect, any man will be happy with them because they've been raised to suffer" (pg. 31) -The Vicaro brothers on the other hand were "Brought up to be men"(pg.31) This was the only thing that the author commented on how they were raised, the significance of this could be that the expectations for being a man is a lot less demanding. -The women in the novel vary in status. Characters like Angela and the other sisters were powerless over their own life, and rarely were able to make decisions of their own while women like Maria Cervantes (Brothel keeper) who were in control of their lives as well as men. //**Yet, although she seems to have control she has limited CHOICE. In this society, is Marquez saying you must be either a wife or a prostitute? Ms K**// Another example would be Pura Vicario. One of the reasons was because she had a career, she was a school teacher, therefore had authority. Another reason is because of her age, and the strict power she possesses over her children, as their mother.**//Schoolteacher - like nursing, another stereotypical career choice for women? Low status, nurturing, so the men let them have this one?//** -Double standards are definitely portrayed in this novel, men are allowed to go to the brothel, yet if women cheated, or lost their virginity before marriage, it is seen as the ultimate sin. Also, women of no status don't have any influence in what men can do to them. Men and women are treated very differently even if they commit the same act. Women are usually judged, or frowned upon. It's consider their fault, not the man's. -Despite the intentions that women may have, men are always dominant, and have a puppet-like-control over them. -Stereotypical roles/actions: House wives, conservative, have no voice/say in the community, arranged marriages, they give themselves to their own families/husbands, they're shunned/punished when having committed a crime, dependency on men, seen as the "vessels of honor" in the family, they need to be pure and saint-like.

Final Statement: Women in the Chronicle of a Death Foretold are put on a pedestal of perfection and expectations. Any slight glitch in their behavior can be fatal to their position in society, nonetheless, not all women are as powerless as some. Marquez uses women to exemplify the faults in a Latin male-dominated society. Through this, we are able to see the great differences and gaps between genders, and the weakness in this society. Despite the traditional "house wife" role which women were expected to be, some still broke the norm and added to the conflicts and strong themes of the novella.

//**A good summary at the end there, well done. Don't be too quick to judge 'Latin' culture! These attitudes can be found in many cultures around the world. Ms K**//

The Supernatural
visions and dreams (Anika and Charlotte) - The Narrator's house is a haven because if Santiago had gone there, he would not have not died - The Narrator's mother is all knowing, even though she never leaves the house. In addition the rest of her family is also aware of everything that goes on in town. - Placida Linero is able to read into dreams. She suggests '"Any dream about birds means good health" she said' (pg 6) yet it turns out Santiago dies. - Bayardo San Roman is supernatural because he is described (by Placida Linero) to have eyes of gold. He also seems to be swimming in gold. Besides that this makes a point about his social status and how rich he is, it makes him seem superior. //**It also adds to his characterization as a devilish figure.**// - The Widower Xius's house is haunted because everybody who lives there ends up dying or alone. However It also symbolizes happiness and once Xius leaves the "happiness" he dies. - The whole novella seems to have a sense of inevitable fate (LIKE OEDIPUS REX) - no one warns Santiago Nasar, but those who do try to, fail. It gives the sense that there is an unseen force preventing Santiago from being warned.//**GOOD!**// - After Santiago dies, the town dies. there is a sense of Karma (//**a better phrase than karma might be just desserts or something else a bit more formal, and with fewer cultural connotations)**// because it seems like everybody gets what they deserve at the end for failing to warn Santiago. - '"Don't comb your hair at night, you will slow down seafarers" she said' - women are much more superstitious throughout the book than men. FINAL STATEMENT: Marquez uses supernatural elements throughout his novella to satirize Latin American superstition, especially in women. //**Interesting ideas!**//
 * //And yet - he grew up with these superstitions and has said in interviews he has respect for them - is he really satirizing the superstitions in a strongly critical way, or is he gently showing us that some of our beliefs might not be very reliable? Ms K//**

2A Socratic Seminar - interesting ideas

 * 'The way he jumbles up the events shows there's no truth to any of the story'


 * 'There's no way out of this. It's as if it already happened." - There seems to be a suggestion both that the murder is totally unavoidable, and that it's entirely preventable. The sense of fate is false - in fact it is totally avoidable, and the fact that nobody prevents the murder strengthens the criticism of the inaction of the townspeople, and the satire of the social structure.

Or - did they all just do too much assuming? Making false assumptions is an important theme.
 * Is it a critique of the passivity of religion? The priest does nothing, the double standards of men and women, the general passivity etc.


 * What is the significance of the Bishop's (non) visit? The town is not significant enough for him to stop - they prepare an elaborate welcome but the bishop only waves as he passes. At the top of the social hierarchy - doesn't deign to visit them. The villagers have misplaced faith? The bishop's visit is used as a frequent excuse for inaction - if he represents the church (METONYMY) then the church is being criticized for its inaction . Is it at all possible that Nasar was murdered BECAUSE the Bishop didn't stop - if the murder is a sacrifice (white clothing, allusions to Jesus etc) he is sacrificed to keep the town prosperous - its lack of prosperity and decline is signified by the fact the Bishop didn't stop. Appearances suggest the town's hypocrisy and superficiality - religious piety is a show. Jesus told us not to kill, to forgive others etc. He is sacrificed to absolve the town of their sins on a Christian level, and to improve their prosperity in a Columbian way. The honor code goes against these teachings, and the town's actions are deeply contradictory to their show of piety. Nasar's death shows the uncomfortable coexistence of different belief systems - does it show that BOTH belief systems are flawed?


 * The social structure of the town creates animosity - the people don't feel guilty because they resent Nasar for his higher social status and wealth. The narrator's failure to find the real violator of Angela or solve the crime shows that he cannot find a valid reason - perhaps because he's an outsider (Arab) and wealthy - is this why he is killed and why the townspeople are so complicit?


 * Lance asked if women in fact have quite a lot of power - for example Prudencia says she wouldn't have married Vicario unless he had committed the crime - thus she plays a part in upholding the honor code. Likewise, Victoria Guzman says Nasar will never have her daughter. Also, Cervantes runs her brothel independently. If these examples do show any power, it shows only that all their power comes from giving or withholding sex or marriage - their only jobs are teaching or nursing, very stereotypical 'women's' jobs - nurturing and poorly paid roles.


 * 'Fatality makes us invisible' - what does this quote from the magistrate mean and how does it relate to the rest of the novel?

4A Socratic Seminar

 * **Complicity** - do the townspeople deliberately fail to prevent the murder, or is an unseen force (such as fate) forcing the murder forward? This question relates to many themes, for example the adherence to the honor code and the role of naively making false assumptions in contributing to Nasar's death. Also see Dion and Connie's comments on fate and how the townspeople blame it in order to absolve themselves from guilt for their inaction.
 * **Honour cod**e - if the town believes the brothers had the right to kill Nasar to avenge the loss of their sister's honour, then why are they so upset about the murder that they talk about nothing else for 27 years? Perhaps - everything is for show; they APPEAR to feel guilty about the murder but actually they do approve of it. This is openly expressed by Nasar's fiance and Prudencia. The killing itself is very gruesome, and events like this although relatively common do not occur every day. Secretly they don't believe in their own cultural values?
 * **Why did Angela choose Nasar as the culprit?** - on a literal level perhaps she thought he was untouchable. On an allegorical level perhaps he was picked because he was the perfect sacrifice. Finally a social interpretation may be that Nasar is chosen because he's disliked because he's of a land owning class or because he's an Arab (racial outsider).
 * **Women** - They are subjugated, and this is one element that links the 'honor code' culture and the Catholic culture, where women are respected as wives only. Karen argued that the women actually **have a lot of power** because they also enable Nasar to be murdered, and have power over the men when they're in love with them. In opposition to this, Ragna argued that the women have very little choice - they can either be a housewife or a prostitute, or take on a stereotypical menial job such as nursing and teaching. Dion clarified by saying that women have a lot of power, they just don't have much choice. This power is sexual or marital but not wide reaching in terms of influencing society. This is linked to the idea of marriage as an economic transaction.
 * **What is the significance of using twins as the murders?** Perhaps the town has two faces....the pristine appearance and the seething chaotic underside....