I really enjoyed this book, it was an interesting read. There were times when I did get a bit lost or confused, but the confusion tended to dissipate as I continued reading. I also did have a hard time remembering which character was which, and who they were connected to, because all of the characters seemed jumbled up to me but also interconnected in a way, kind of like a spider’s web. With that being said, I had a hard time writing a blog post for this book. The story was relatively straightforward and there wasn’t all that much going on, yet somehow I couldn’t figure out what I wanted to say. After thinking about it for a long time, one big theme popped out to me in the novel and that was time and family.
All the characters in the novel are tied to their families history, which is unfortunately plagued with bad luck. It seems like no matter what they did, the characters would always be tethered to their family’s past, like there’s an invisible string (Taylor Swift reference) that cannot be broken and will force them to experience their own bad luck. This idea that everyone’s fates are predetermined adds an element of sadness for the reader, and it made me wish for some of the characters that the saying “family isn’t always blood”, was applicable in this story.
Furthermore, there was something captivating about reading a story where you knew the end of every characters story because despite that you kept hoping that someone would be able to escape the “curse”. There was also an added sense of realism because it showed that the past cannot always be escaped, which I think a lot of us can relate to. Anyways, with the idea of predetermined futures for the characters it made the story seem circular in a way. It seemed like a never ending cycle, where everyone was bounded to the same fate.
Also, a bit of a side-note but this book reminded me so much of the book East of Eden by John Steinbeck, maybe because I read it again recently. In that novel the characters tried to see if they could escape the evil in their family, similar to how the characters in this book were trying to escape their families history. For those of you who liked this book, or didn’t, I definitely recommend this book.
Question to think about: The idea that no one can escape their family’s past is a big theme throughout the novel. So, in your opinion why do you think Márquez created this world where every characters future is predetermined?
I think the reference to Steinbeck is not wrong. Thank you for commenting on this fact. I have not read that novel but I know that García Márquez was a fan of 20th century American literature. (But the best reference is to Taylor Swift). That invisible string sometimes makes itself visible, like the blood thread of a certain character. If you remember the video of Dr. Beasley-Murray where he elaborates exactly that idea of fate, there are elements to continue discussing.
Taylor Swift, Daniel??
I would agree that fate seems slightly predetermined for residents of Macondo. I wouldn’t go as far to say entirely predetermined, because I do think some characters have some agency and personality of their own. I think García Márquez is trying to demonstrate the cyclical nature of things, not the repetitive nature of things- if that makes sense. There are general patterns which persist throughout generations but there is individual variation in each generation.
I think the emphasis on the inevitability of fate here was meant to be read politically. Latin America has been stuck in cycles of corruption and exploitation for centuries; even when things look as if they could improve, whether through change in government or the growth of new industries, everything always seems to falls back into the old patterns sooner or later. I think Márquez is trying to satirize this history through the story of a wealthy family blinded by arrogance and unable to learn from the past, constantly repeating the same mistakes.
I was also reminded of East of Eden, what with the similar narrative structure of passing through generations of a family trying to escape their past – though that book is a lot more optimistic than this one. This difference could also be interpreted politically: Steinbeck stands for the American ideals of freedom during an era when it seemed like one was truly responsible for their own fate, while Márquez represents a part of the world where freedom appeared less promising.