So far, so good.
I haven’t finished the book yet but man, is it wonderful. I can only imagine what the original book in Spanish must be like; it must sounds amazing. Aside from the magical and fantastical idea of this book, it is simply written very well and I just wanted to take a moment to say it.
The many ideas that arise from reading this book are quite intriguing. Though, I haven’t finished it, I am getting some similar themes from Oedipus Rex about fate, curses, and the human will. I’m sure it will take awhile to understand a bit more of what this book is preposing but right now it almost seems as if this narrative, not the story, is very playful with how it reveals historical details while excluding others. As if they are letting us see the desert but not taste it. And of course, its syntaxes and its repetition is what gives it that superficial and sonic playfulness.
And from these playful methods arise sobering topics like history repeating itself. It is interesting to read along and experience some of the horrific events that happen but experiencing it under this playful “narrative” umbrella. It may be a similar narration in the minds of the people that do practice some too things in the book. The way of phrasing desire or justifying a crime could come natural to all if we are pushed to those limits and though it may be fatally or morally serious to us in the moment, in retrospect, when it known and talked about by others, they too may have a method of telling horrific events in a playful manner so people may grasp a bit more of the encompassed.
Maybe this is also a similar method of Garcia Marquez but most impressive, is the manner in which delivers his narrative. Playing with time, as the author does, with his references to the future, to the ancient, and to the multiplicity of the present — sometimes even all in one line — seems hard but very rewarding in consideration to plot. Applying that reconstruction of time through narrative seems to have given Garcia Marquez lots of room to fill the pockets of time with whatever he wanted. And it seems that he wanted a lot.
My question will be revolved around a quote from the top of page 136. The excerpt goes:
“Tell me something, old friend: why are you fighting?”
“What other reason could there be?” Colonel Gerineldo Marquez answered. “For the Liberal Party.”
“You’re lucky because you know why,” he answered. “As far as I’m concerned, I’ve come to realize only just now that I’m fighting because of pride.”
“That’s bad,” Colonel Gerineldo Marquez said.
Colonel Aureliano Buendia was amused at his alarm. “Naturally,” he said. But in any case, it’s better than not knowing why you’re fighting. He looked him in the eyes and added with a smile:
“Or fighting, like you, for something that doesn’t have any meaning for anyone.”
Why does the liberal party not have any meaning for anyone in Colonel Aureliano Buendia’s opinion?
The book, read in Spanish, has an enviable prose rhythm. It’s part of that charm that doesn’t let you let go. Keep reading and you’ll see that it all makes sense. But you touch on an important issue: the impact of the terrible events narrated on the “total” history of the town. Are they relativized? What is the function of the “perpetual present” and the events of history?
I like your idea of history repeating itself, and agree with the analysis. Considering the tale follows a family throughout the decades, it would make sense that human nature does not change. In my blog I mentioned this might correspond to the author’s own beliefs in the universal experience of humanity as connecting us all.
I think that Aureliano’s attitude towards the war gradually shifted as a result of him experiencing battle after battle with little to no change in the political structure/governmental makeup of the region. Throughout his time as Coronel, what kept him going was his own pride, the feeling that he himself was making a difference. Yet when he realizes that this pride was truly motivating his actions, he reflects on the true nature of the war, and realizes that this back and forth between parties is useless, feeble, as he has not seen any noticeable shift in the state of affairs. Later on in the book, Aureliano notes the seeming similarities of the Conservatives and Liberals, they appear later on to be fighting for the same things, but under the pretense that the other party is actually antagonistic to their cause.
Aureliano feels as if the struggle, ‘the good fight’, has not and potentially will not change anything – strife will continue and the seeming perfect nature of things at the beginning of the founding of Macondo will never, in actuality, be returned to.
Curtis HR