Nothing is guaranteed in life. Garcia Marquez, in his book Chronicles of a Death Foretold, employs perspective and point of view stylistic device to prove this point. Point of view can be defined as the angle in which an individual sees a story or narrates it. Perspective, on the other hand, is the outlook in which someone retells a story. Marquez also throws in confusion of facts by contradicting the opinions of different individuals. The use of first-person opinion and perception in the book helps in projecting the uncertainty that is experienced in the entire book. This paper seeks to discuss how perspective and point of view has been used in the novel. Through the use of multiple perspectives and non-linear narration, the author creates ambiguity about the major events of the story and keeps the readers captivated through the narration.
Perspective and First Person Point of View
By using the first-person point of view, the narrator makes it difficult for the reader to decide what is true or false. Through the first-person point of view, the narrator is placed at the core of the story. The author shares in the experiences of the people of the town during the chronology of events that resulted in the murdering of Santiago Nazar, 27 years before the book was written. Unable to tell what is true about the murder of Santiago, the narrator goes to the site where the murder took place to unravel the truth by putting all the puzzles of the murder together. The narrator did know also construct his characters well to maintain the art of ambiguity (Gale, 12). The audience is left to decide on the validity of the story as the narrator leaves out crucial details of his informants.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Clothdile Armenta is only described as a milk shop owner and is intentions are made hard to understand since she lets Vicario brothers stay by his shop knowing very well that they intended to kill Santiago. In page 55, we are told that she knew them so well that she could tell apart, and she could give her word that they did not mean their intentions. By this scene, the first person point of view has been used to obstruct the reader from discerning facts (Gale 2016, pg., 13). The reader is left at the mercies of what the informants are willing to reveal about the murder. First-hand information is always what people go by, of which one can never be sure of whose point of view to trust when the information is varied.
The narrator makes it difficult to tell whether the claims that Santiago had taken away Angela's innocence was valid. The reader is left to decide whether Santiago was the culprit in this case or not. We are told that no one could have imagined that Angela Vicario was not a virgin. However, no evidence is put forth to prove the claims. The narrator does not let his readers share in Angela's thought as she is the only one with surety of the matter (Gale 2016, pg.30). Through other people's opinion, the narrator proves that it is almost impossible to know and support what is right.
The fact that death is a mystery is also proven by using the contradicting point of views. The mystery is something tough to understand. For example, Vicario brothers opine that it was not raining on that fateful day (Marquez 2014, pg. 61). On the contrary, Colonel Aponte says that rain had just begun that evening of the act. These subtle details throw in the ambiguity of the matter, which aggravates with each person's narration. The reader becomes more confused about the issue, unable to tell what information to go by and what is to be ignored. That is the truth about death. It brings in confusion, and no one has ever understood it.
The fact that the investigation is done 27 years later also warrants for the conflicting opinions. It is a long time enough to distort vital information. It is a long time for someone to remember all the details of that fateful day. In an attempt to recall, some critical information is left out, and some lies are thrown in to cover for the forgotten facts. However, it is hard to tell which information is left out and which ones are cooked in the story ( Ahmad, Afsar, & Masood, 2015) . Since the reader was not present at the event, he/she is left at the mercies of the informant’s opinion in discerning the truth of the murder.
The events are approached through reporters’ perspective. Through this perspective, a narrative voice is constructed. The main aim of reporters in the real world is to unravel the truth, and so is the objective of the narrator in the book. The author gifts his narrator with the power to be objective and detached as human nature is. However, it fails as the narrator has preconceived notions on some issues (Ciamparella, 2015). The preconceived notions are also human nature and make the reader question whether he is factual or not.
The narrator describes Santiago as a merry, peaceful and open-hearted man (p.g 8). The narrator's opinion is, however, disputed by Victoria Guzman, who describes Santiago's attitude towards women as chauvinistic and disgusting. The author also intentionally makes sure the reporter does not question the validity of the information he gathers, allowing the reader to sort out facts (Marguez, 2015). The reader here is confused about whether to trust the narrator or then informant. The intensity of guilt felt by each informant shows what is right as per their account/perspective. For instance, Colonel Aponte says that suspicion does not warrant for arrest, by saying this, he is trying to justify why he let Vicario Brothers stay outside Clothilde’s store before the murder. Any attempt by the narrator to dig facts is refuted as the story going by the accounts of his informants is confusing and conflicting.
Through perspective, the compilation of guilt of those who knew of the impending murder and tried to stop it, and those who knew about it and did nothing about it can be distinguished. It is also possible to assume that the people in the town of murder had personal incentives to let the killing of Santiago occur. For example, the priest claims that he forgot to caution Santiago. However, the way he performs the autopsy says otherwise. The act introduces the reader to the outside perspective, which is another source of ambiguity. The priest ruthlessly massacres the body in what is described as giving the guts an angry blessing and throwing them into the garbage (pg., 76). From this act, the narrator might have intended to uncover the rot of the church and also how a character can be corrupted (Ciamparella, 2015). Being a wealthy Arab (Santiago), and the priest did what he did to his intestines, the hatred and jealousy towards the Santiago are uncovered.
Santiago is also painted with ambiguity. On a fateful day, it is like he sensed danger that day as he instructs his cook to the gutting of rabbits look like it was a human being (pg., 10). This act shows that he had sensed something peculiar that morning. The narrator says that the cards Santiago was playing were unknown, a suggestion that Santiago might have known of his impending fate. Since the narrator denies the reader to also dine in Santiago's perspective and projects his conviction through others' perception, however, this is nothing to go by as guilt might have driven those who knew of his impending murder to mask the truth about the event. They might be trying to conceal their guilt by perceiving that Santiago knew he would be murdered (Willey, 2016). Pedro one of Santiago's murders, claims that Santiago knew the reason behind his death when Clotilde wants to know more about their plan to murder Santiago. However, those who were clueless of the murder plan, including the narrator bare contrary opinion. For instance, the narrator clearly states that his impression is that Santiago died before knowing of neither his murder nor the reason behind it. The reader is again left to sort out the truth from these accounts.
Nonlinear Narration
The story is not told through a linear narrative. The narrator keeps going back and forth the Santiago murder. It is ironical as the title of the book is Chronicles of a death foretold. The reader would expect the events to be stated in an orderly manner of which this is not granted. The art is meant to create suspense and interest. The reader is left wanting more after each event, and the author keeps denying the reader this pleasure to the end of the book. Reader's attention is engaged throughout the book ( Aghaei & Hayati, 2014) . The reason for this messed up chronology might also be attributed to two main reasons: one reason could be as a purpose of recalling the murder of Santiago, and the other could be due to weak memory.
The primary purpose is to make the story a journey and not a destination. Just like the detective mode of narration, the novel follows a journey and not a destination. We are informed of Santiago's death at the very beginning of the journey. The author then takes us down the road recounting of every event that took place throughout the journey. The audience is made aware of who killed Santiago and the reason behind the murder at the very beginning of the novel as well. He adds information to the murder bit by bit throughout the journey (Ciamparella, 2015). Just like any detective, Marquez tries to fill in the puzzle and elucidate the whole picture of the event.
The major part of the novel entails the narrator revisiting the events that took place 27 years ago. In the book, the narrator keeps referring to memory as shattered and broken. To recall what happened 27 years ago, it takes a lot of effort and consciousness. Remembering is also mostly dependent on retrieval cues based on feelings or memories ( Aghaei, & Hayati, 2014) . For instance, the death of Santiago gives Vicario brothers joy; for this reason, they chose to remember the weather that day as sunny. Sunshine is often associated with happiness. On the contrary, Colonel feels bad about Santiago's death hence chooses to recall the day as rainy to represent the gloom that engulfed him and the entire town that very day.
Psychology also states that since memory is weak in recounting events, people tend to tell stories in random order. This explains why the eyewitnesses in the novel twist (though unintentionally), their memories. Weak memory is also the primary source of conflicting ideas throughout the novel. Most stories that the audience are not so sure of the information they are given also take such a messed up chronology (Little, 2019). The fact also shows that the narrator is unsure of the information he is getting hence scatters it in an attempt to discern the truth. He also tries to remain realistic as much as possible.
The nonlinear way of storytelling also brings out literary techniques. Since Santiago's death is announced at the beginning of the novel, it becomes hard to introduce the concept of foreshadowing. Non-chronological narration thus helps to add this stylistic device. For example, we learn that Santiago's funeral did not have flowers a day before his murder, where Santiago says that death was related to closed-in flowers and repeatedly says it as he enters the church (Little, 2019). In this event, Santiago's funeral is foretold, and the details are given as well. Santiago's Ghost is also anticipated as the novel reveals that we are told of how frightening Santiago's grab by the wrist with a hand that felt stony and frozen like a dead man (pg., 13). Without nonlinear narration, it would have been tough to use foreshadowing in the novel.
Symbolism is also introduced through nonlinear narration. Colonel describes that fateful day as a rainy day. Rain is used here to depict dark days ahead. It represents the sadness and gloom that crowns death. Interestingly, Santiago's murderers' describe the day as golden as the sun. It shows how Angela's brothers delighted on that day and how Colonel loathes that same day ( Márquez, 2015) . It could also show how memory can be inaccurate, as mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
Marquez intends to keep the reader undistracted by using non-chronological narration. The fact that 27 years are too much to tell a story without creating loopholes leaves the writer with no option but to use a messed up chronology. By doing this, the reader remains focused on the quest to analyze the events around Santiago's death. The novel also maintains its classical and captivating touch, which would have otherwise, not been achieved using straight forward writing. Even though the nonlinear narration, point of view and perspective, the reader is drawn closer to the death events. Death is the only sure thing in life yet tough to comprehend is correctly projected by the use of perspective and point of view.
References
Aghaei, M. B., & Hayati, S. (2014). Application of Journalistic Style of Narration in Marquez's Novels. Studies in Literature and Language , 9 (2), 12.
Ahmad, M., Afsar, A., & Masood, S. (2015). Elements of Social Protest in Gabriel García Márquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold: A Study in Magical Realism, 28 (2), 1-17.
Ciamparella, A. (2015). Inclusion/exclusion: the abject other and its free passage to social order in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Atenea , 35 (1-2), 31-43.
Gale, C. L. (2016). A Study Guide for Gabriel Garcia Marquez's" Chronicle of a Death Foretold" . Gale, Cengage Learning.
Little, W. (2019). Where did the time go?. Celebrating Writers and Writing in our Communities , 2 (1), 20.
Márquez, G. G. (2015). Narrativity and Enaction in Chronicle of a Death Foretold. In Stories, Meaning, and Experience (pp. 131-146). Routledge.
Márquez, Gabriel García. Chronicle of a death foretold . Penguin UK, 2014.
Wiley, J. D. (2016). Baby, It Ain't Easy: On Honesty and Violence in Gabriel García Márquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Pleiades: Literature in Context , 36 (1), 161-162.
