Love in the Time of Cholera discussion

I am an avid reader and enjoy many different genres of books. I can typically appreciate different styles and themes.
I am really struggling with finding the beauty in this one!
I don't recall ever reading a book where I despised the main character. I've certainly read books where I don't agree with the main character's actions, or maybe find comical relief in disliking them...but I think Florentino is despicable! He makes my skin crawl. He's a child molestor, stalker, and seems to have some screws loose in his head. (Many).
Can anyone shed some light on this so I might be able to see some beauty in it? I really do want to like the book but am struggling with perspective here...

I guess sometimes, making a character likable is not the point? That's just what he is in the story.

I really hated the whole book.

Child molester? Maybe I missed something, I'm only about 75 pages into the book. I know Florentino and Fermina begin their romance at young ages but I was under the impression that she went into her marriage with Juvenal still a virgin.

Not that I completely disagree with your premise. After all, here's a guy who spends most of his time in a brothel. And, stays in love with a married woman for 50+ years (Dude, let it go).

That said, I still love the author's writing. I read One Hundred Years of Solitude before this one and while neither book is an "easy read," they are both entertaining. To me, he is a master of humor and the study of human nature. His characters are so real and carnal and he often shows the absurdity of their actions. Its hard to get past the omniscient POV and lack of dialog but its worth it for the great stories.

Perhaps the character of Florentino should not be taken so literally.
I think Marquez intended for him to be symbolic of many abstract ideas. I think the author, in my opinion, was fully aware, and with great mastery created a complex character that we can loathe and
we are supposed to get a message (or several) from how we feel.
It goes to the entire complex issues about love, loss, sex and death. If we are to take everything that Florentino did on a literal level, and derive all the meanings of the book by such a process,
it would be quite pointless to try to understand Marquez or his
attempt to dissect human nature.

That said, I was repelled by Florentino, but it didn't keep me from wanting to read to the end and I think the book is a masterpiece -
a meditation on the human condition. In addition, Marquez made me laugh out loud. He is capable of deep humor which drives his points home.

I think the person referring to the 'child molester' meant his affair with the young America Vicuna. Wasn't this symbolic of Florentino's last attempt to recapture his youth, and his realization that he cannot? Wasn't her death, clearly, the death of his youth? At the same, ironically, America was one of the women who truly was devastated by him, despite his age - loved him madly, was obsessed by him - just like Florentino was obsessed by his love for Fermina. Love is not simple, but in the
end, it is the only thing worth dying for.

I struggled to finish this book. I hated the character, disliked the style of writing.
Maybe something was lost in the translation.

If you have trouble "getting" Florentino it has less to do with you being North American and has more to do with you easily forgetting what adolescent love was like. Don't get hung up with details that make you uncomfortable (as an aside to Terry, brothels made up a huge part of life for many in the turn of the century and, you might be surprised, are a part of life of many people up until today) and try and remember your first crush or a mad 15 y/o affair with the kid your parents hated.

Sure Florentino was obsessed for 52 years after being rebuffed as a teenager, but that's the magic part of magic realism.

Sure Florentino was flawed (i think even in the 1920's pedaphilia, even if it was symbolic, was still shunned) but every fictional character, just like every real person, is flawed, that's the realism part of magic realism.

btw; good post Writermyst, but i don't think all that symbolism is THAT clear.

FYI, I finished the book last night and posted my review. I understand where some of you are coming from in defense of Ariza but I still couldn't empathize. If there was any redemption in him at all, it was that he learned, in the end, that true love is more about selflessness than sex or conquest. Although he wept for America, I didn't see enough remorse or repentance to merit redemption for the character.

Still, overall, I enjoyed the book, especially the humor.

Hmm. I was away, so excuse my delay in responding. First of all,
symbolism, is a technique used by writers that is not supposed to serve the purpose solely of clarifying their intentions. It is primarily a tool used to bring out the PERSONAL reactions of the readers. He is leading you on to draw your OWN conclusions. So, yeah, what may seem 'clear' to me is clearly not 'clear' to you. Moreover, the conclusions are more than likely just as many as there are readers. Isn't that the whole point of reading and interpreting works of (great) art? Ambiguity in literature, not only in our day, as it is in most of the arts is a necessary part of the processes and, in my humble opinion, it is what makes any work INTERESTING. If we all were to draw the same conclusions, by the very clarity of symbolism or any other technique, I think it then the work would be a total bore. Isn't the purpose of this web site, goodread.com, to provoke these types of intelligent discussions, and greatly varied responses? Even professional literary critics have totally different theories of the same works. Sorry to go on and on, but I was an English Major! I am also very passionate about literature as all of you here are.

But, my main point is that SYMBOLISM is not supposed to be all THAT clear. Which means we are all entitled to our own interpretations. In fact, the author is goading us on to them, if you asked me, (laughs).

Terry, I am not sure I was supposed to 'like' the characters, or that it was Marquez' intention to have all of them be 'redeemed' in some way. I know as a writer that you have to give your characters some like-able qualities, but Marquez seems to be defying this rule. Whether intentionally, or not, the characters may not be gaining our empathy - but he has succeeded in creating a strong response from the readers. I kept asking myself, how could I keep going on in reading about such a despicable man. Yet, I did. By the powers of his words and the inimitable skills of the author, I was compelled. Yes, I was compelled to read it to the end and to ponder it. I can't say it is a 'feel-good' book. In fact, it was difficult to read on many levels. It revealed to me, among other things, my own fears. Not just of what we as human beings are capable of, but of our common human destinies. Undeniable frightening.

And YES, there is CHOLERA. It is everywhere. The cholera is in all of us. Fortunately, there is also love. In some of us. The author may be trying to say, the only way to 'overcome' the 'sickness' that is life itself, sometimes, is love.

I think that the main character faces an overwhelming heroic arc that he must complete in order to find redemption. That it is a trial which he self-imposes doesn't make it any less daunting. He has chosen to define himself only with respect to and in the context of being with the one person he has truly ever loved. And within that context, once you are able to separate the sex from the love, he is absolutely pure. He cannot love any other woman in the world, and he has legitimately proven that with his actions.

It seems as though Fiorentino represents this bastion of love at the beginning and Fermina comes to represent the callousness, the harshness of practicality. In choosing status, looks, or money, she is in fact rejecting her one chance at true love. In Garcia Marquez's world, this is the greatest sin of all, far worse than countless fornications. What are countless meaningless encounters when compared to the rejection of love? Nothing really. So, it is actually Daza who has created Fiorentino, who has broken him, who has emptied his soul. And like a soulless man, he commits act after act of meaningless physical union in the name of finding some semblance of humanity or love. That he never finds it in the endless encounters tells you how the author truly feels with regard to the cheap, one-night-stands in spite of the flowery language he uses to describe them in detail.

Finally, it is when Fermina is able to see what it is that she passed up, once she is able to appreciate what Fiorentino truly represented (and it is more than just adolescent love) for her which is one chance at true happiness, once she sees that again after not having it for so long, she finally is able to appreciate and accept him. But of course, he as well has to learn how to reach a woman of the status and experience of a Fermina Daza de Urbino and he can only do that with the experience of a lifetime and of having bedded so many women. But at the same time, he has to renounce all of that at the end to be worthy of her acceptance. Otherwise, he dies alone, a shell of a person with all the good that he aspired to in finding true love withered and lost a long time ago. It's the overcoming of their failures that only comes with age and experience that allows them both to become whole, happy people together at last at the end. But at least they have that which is more than can be said for most.

In fact, the name Fermina derives from "Fermi", sick or fermented. She is the cholera, he is the love, but to her it is the other way around. When she infects him, he loses his soul. Only she can cure him. Only the one can reach out and cure the other.

Complex to be sure, but isn't any relationship at least this complex? So the short answer is, you're supposed to hate him, you're supposed to disapprove of him, you're supposed to reject him the same way that Fermina did. And you are supposed to love her the way that Fiorentino loves her. So what you feel is essentially what Garcia Marquez wants you to feel, but remember that he wants your opinions of them to change as he redeems them in the end.

Daniel,

Bravo! You have posted one of the best interpretations I have read anywhere of this book and the characters in it. This is insightful, well-written, coherent, literary.

I agree with all of it.

Márquez typically writes about his characters having carnal relationships with children, his other book <> also has elements of pedophilia in it. The author also repeats lines and uses the same sex scene in the various books he's written. Its quite tiresome reading his books after a while, besides my opinion that his stories are trite and written in an obscure style that is contrary to my personal literary tastes.

I have not much to add to what Daniel had already said so eloquently.

Only that authors of Marquez' caliber do not set out to write about 'pedophelia.' While that term may be applicable to some cheap, thriller in his work this term is entirely limiting and perhaps inappropriate. Artists are bound to express themselves in ways that are not acceptable to the norm, and he is not the first one to do this. Should we boycott every great writer who has written about taboo subjects to make a point? Does John Waters merit anymore celebrity than Marquez? Or William Borroughs of 'Naked Lunch'? Or even Nabokov in 'Lolita?' The list goes on, I am sure.

If the subjects in a book make us uncomfortable, or if a particular author is not to your taste, you have the option not to read him/her, just like you have the option not to rent porn or switch the dial when watching an offensive T.V. show.

I really resent calling his writing 'tiresome' just because it is difficult, or 'obscure' for the same reason. Yes, I agree these are not light-hearted beach-books, but there is so much else to chose from, why persevere in beating up on this author. Move on.

And oh, repetition is rampant in lot of authors' works. It is a technique, I believe (?)

I accept that the author and his style are contrary to your personal taste. But that is choice. I think its still unfair to castigate him, though, only because he deals in taboo subject manner and you don't like his style. When Henry James writes a sentence, that can get on my nerves, too. Nevertheless, I think to discredit him would be a travesty. No, G.G. M. is too great a literary genius to be dismissed with complaints of 'too obscure' and since when was he 'trite?' Much of what passes for literature today is pure garbage - but nobody will even remark upon it, because its like junk food.

i hate the main character alot,i dont like this book atall.

Each to his/own, her own. I thought it was one of the best books I've ever read. A masterpiece. I couldn't put it down.

Had no liking for Florentino's charachet, either. But, even so, I loved the book. I am not sure what your point is, anyway? I don't read books or finish books I do not like. There is no law that says you should, except if its required reading for a course.

I don't like the serial killers in James Patterson books either.

Writermyst:

why the mildly laced vitriol in response to each comment against the book or the incessant need to reply to each post contrary to your liking of the book ? So it is very clear that you adore the book, but surely to reply to each and every post dismissing the book is a little.. over board don't you think?

Contrary also, to what you wrote, I did not "persevere in beating on this author". All I did was to write one post in response to the discussion, so I think your choice of the word "persevere" is a bad reflection of the facts.

"Move on" you spitefully wrote. Well, let me use the same phrase unto you. Move on, there are more people than those on this forum that dislike the book and you cannot possibly know and rebutt all their comments.

Um-mm. Natalie, I reread my posts and non of them contained any 'mildly laced vitriol' - and especially not in response to your post. The vitriol is all coming from you.

So, how do you know that 'more people disliked the book than like it,' and are you the opinion police or something? I never attacked any person ad hominem. You, however, are attacking me, ad hominem, and not my comments. We are all free to express our opinions on these books, as many or as few times as we wish, or is there a cap now on what and how much I may respond? And who put you in charge?

I am not rebutting anyone's comments, but I am rebutting your arrogance and your obvious annoyance with me ultimately shows your intolerance. You are the only person who made a comment about ME, not about the BOOK, ok?

I am not here to 'put' anybody down. If I wish to defend a favorite author on intellectual grounds, not personal attacks, that is my choice. I find it really appalling that YOU went out of your way to cast me in this role and say these vicious things about me, and I am really appalled that I find myself being baited by you to even answer your puerile comments.

Man, I really do like goodreads, I'm glad I found it, its fun and illuminating to read everyone's opinions. Writermyst, I especially like the passion you're bringing to the table here, but there's no need to attack Natalie or get defensive. Truth be told, in my opinion you did kinda tip-toe on the border of abrasive condesension in your posts, but whatever, its all good, I like it when people talk about what they think. There's no reason for anyone to get riled up, its not like we're reading Ayn Rand.

Right you are. I have been getting updates of this conversation and it's been interesting to read whilst my dissertation is killing me softly on the other side. I love discussion boards like that. :)

I too think this work is a masterpeice, a study of human pathos in new form. I never felt invited to cast judgement upon Florentino, but rather to feel great sorrow for him at first, then pity and after a while I was sure that the author was making a point concerning the absurd nature in us all...when Love is on your side, you can do anything, even 600 weird sexual encounters - you can't help but admire the absurdity. Florentino's love turned to obsession and then he made it his own in an unforgettable way. Yes, great hypocrasy shrouds the man but who says the wretched cannot love. My mind cannot grasp it all, but I know for sure this story will live on because it concerns the elemental in us all. Maybe if I pick it in a few years I'll see it differently....probably not.

My thoughts exactly Ramiro! I just recently re-read it after several years of recommending it to others and I still feel it is a masterpiece for all the reason you mentioned.

Agreed, bravo David for a well composed review of the characters. "She is the cholera, he is the love." Great line.

A lot of people speak of how they disliked the charaters. That's understandable, but it's also what the author probably intended. He didn't want to make them lovable, he wanted to make them realistic, and I think he succeeded. How many people do we meet in everyday life that we spontaneously adore or find irresistably interesting? How many of us have habits that othrs would find rediculous or even distasteful? Marquez may take us into a place we don't want to go, but that's what makes his writing rather cathartic.

I, too, hated this book.

His is a paen to perserverance, obsessive love in the face of its longstanding,unrequited character. Yes, Florentino is loathsome, but Marquez is able to squeeze a little bit of respect out of the reader for this tiresome creature. That is the beauty of the story.

I hated the main character he is atypical man he made himself the victim and kept nagging about it for the whole damn book ... wake up the real world is full with broken hearts... most of them are WOMEN !!

I disliked this book.I have read so many of his other books that have remained with me forever,this one just didn't do it for me.

Interesting article I found about gripping first and last lines of this novel.

http://asolitarypassion.blogspot.com/...

Amanda wrote: "I am an avid reader and enjoy many different genres of books. I can typically appreciate different styles and themes.
I am really struggling with finding the beauty in this one!
I don't recall ev..." I have never hated a book and hero so much as I despised the writing, its pretentious style and even more so many people saying what great literature this was. I'm Latino. It's not a cultural aspect to us in how we love. I hated that it romanticized love, the kind that Garcia writes is akin to a celebrity stalker. NOT real love. And am so exhausted to read so many people liking this book, story, simply because others have. I agree with you. MAY he RIP but was never a fan. Then again he, for many , was an icon.

deleted user wrote: "A lot of people speak of how they disliked the charaters. That's understandable, but it's also what the author probably intended. He didn't want to make them lovable, he wanted to make them realist..."
sorry but "realist" is not his prose, nor loving a pedophile which the character was. his writing might be cathartic to you, but to me it is simply predictable, flowery and vain.

Liking or disliking Florentino was never an issue for me. He is a character with faults just like any other well rounded character, Fermina Daza included. One of the greatest books I've ever read and one I reread every few years.

I disliked Florentino for his lack of regret for the 14 year old´s suicide than for his pedophilia, but yes, I could have cared less what happened to him afterwards. Too bad Fermina was lonely enough and desperate to put up with that slime.

Amanda wrote: "I don't recall ever reading a book where I despised the main character. ..but I think Florentino is despicable! He makes my skin crawl. He's a child molestor, stalker, and seems to have some screws loose in his head. ..."

Nope. Not to me. I can't think of a single issue I had with him. He's a favorite character of mine from modern fiction; perhaps because he is written with the frank, unapologetic, passionate masculinity I've come to expect from Marquez. Are you more comfortable with 'sanitized' characters which the Ladies' Home Journal and Good Housekeeping might safely recommend?

Marquez is simply writing from the perspective of a man-of-the-world. As well as that of a Latin male. Moreover, a Latin male of the latter half of the 19th Century. Do you really think anything that occurs in this novel is something the world hasn't long since been witness to, in human affairs? Do you think the fictional city (said to be Cartagena, Columbia) in this novel is so different from other cities down throughout history? Do you think that previous generations did not love and lust and employ-each-other, in the way Marquez describes?

If you do, then I recommend this as your next read: Pierre Louys' .

Rob wrote: "If you have trouble "getting" Florentino it has less to do with you being North American and has more to do with you easily forgetting what adolescent love was like. Don't get hung up with details ..."

Hi,

Thank you. I agree, symbolism wasn't all that clear. However, if you know the writer's background it might be easier to get.

I want to reread this book, and make time to read all of Marquez' books. I think with time, your understanding of literature grows and deepens.

@Amanda,

I completely agree with your post. Its eloquent, well-written and shows a profound grasp of the subjects, the writer, history and human nature.

Yeah, and let those who disagree read books that contain 'sanitized
characters' that appear by books recommended by 'Ladies Home Journal,' etc. There is a market for every type of reader -- and some readers are not 'cut out' to read Marquez - and I will go out on a limb and even say that some readers do not deserve him. Yes, that does
sound elitist of me and I am already anticipating the attacks of the so called 'nice' and 'normal' people. But, "frankly, I don't give a damn."
The only thing that really matters is the truth and the opinions of
those who truly understand great literature. Bravo to you!

I'm not sure the book or the main character are as difficult as this thread is making them out to be:
http://thenobbyworks.blogspot.com/201...

I think this is pretty straight forward. His heart was broken. He never recovered from it. And the pain of it caused him to embrace a perverse way of living.

I loved the book by the way.

Feliks
Your moral compass is broken. Straighten it out, supermacho guy.

I guess we all take out of a book what our experiences allow us to understand or at least be open to understanding. I found it to be an amazing book, somewhat of a song to love, praising or admiring, if you will, adolescent infatuation, stable long-term marriage, and even an elderly couple renewing a long ago, unconsummated love. Marquez is simply marvelous. I didn't take the hundreds of affairs of Florentino as meaningful - they apparently weren't to him and they didn't make much of an impression on me. Could have been symbolic or make believe, but it never was a main part of the story to me.

I like Daniel's comment that it shows that he lost his soul without Fermina. Yes, he could have been celibate and joined a monastery, but that has already been overdone many times; this approach has so much more humor, and, just to mention, room for misinterpretation.

Geoffrey wrote: "Feliks
Your moral compass is broken. Straighten it out, supermacho guy."

Ha. You may see fit to dwell in Switzerland; I choose, Venice.

Go with the góndolas then. And may the Alps refresh your olfactory in August.

Read half of it , long back, did'nt like it. And upto that point there was nothing about the main character to like.

i think the main character is rly relatable. a lot of ppl probably do the same things that he does, probably. i think some ppl might bget turned off that hes' always hanging out in a sex dungeon but everyone has a differenst hobbies.

I am reading Love in The Time of Cholera right now. I am so disappointed in the novel! I dislike the characters because they are such hypocrites, Florentino most of all, but all of the others too. These are ugly people who love only themselves.

Tessa wrote: "I am reading Love in The Time of Cholera right now. I am so disappointed in the novel! I dislike the characters because they are such hypocrites, Florentino most of all, but all of the others too..."

I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't enjoy this book at all. It was one I wanted to throw across the room after I read the final page.

I hated the "protagonist" in PERFUME. I heartily disliked the hero in this novel. I loved the book.

Lea wrote: "Tessa wrote: "I am reading Love in The Time of Cholera right now. I am so disappointed in the novel! I dislike the characters because they are such hypocrites, Florentino most of all, but all of ..."

I understand your frustration. I had a lot of expectations from this book, but it feels so anti climactic. So many questions unanswered. I just couldn't grasp what the author was trying to convey.

Mrs. wrote: "The only thing I can think of is that this is a different culture, so maybe we just don't get it ..."

I am from South America. In our culture, pedophilia (among other behaviors) is NOT OK and it wasn't OK back in those times. Just in case Mrs. and others are still wondering what kind of savages we are or were. Sure it happens: sadly, it happens everywhere!

The book is written from Florentino's point of view, so that we get to be in his head, but that doesn't mean that we are supposed to admire him or find him justifiable.

As an author, sometimes you describe a pitiful, despicable, horrific, etc. situation (other books by Marquez do that) for readers to know it, to think about it, to criticize it or to take whatever they feel from it. To describe violence is not to praise violence. To describe an obsessed old man molesting a 13 year-old is not to say that it's acceptable.

I think that readers are supposed to be able to find these nuances according to their own criteria. To hate the main character doesn't mean to hate the book. Maybe we are supposed to dislike Florentino or, at least, to see where he is wrong and what he does that is reprehensible.

I didn't find Florentino loathsome until his pedophilia.