fiction files redux discussion

Alright folks here's the plan:

This is the first of 5 discussion topics, each topic will cover 4 chapters. We will be reading at an easy pace of 2 chapters a week. Hopefully breaking it up this way will help prevent spoilers, and keep discussions more relevant as we progress through the novel. Here are the dates of the read:

Week 1- 8/13: Chapters 1 & 2
Week 2- 8/20: Chapters 3 & 4
Week 3- 8/27: Chapters 5 & 6
etc.

Of course some of us will read faster than others so I will create each discussion topic as necessary in order to allow the faster readers to begin the discussions.

And away we go!

Want to know who/what you are getting involved with/in?

Here's some background reading on Gabriel Garcia Marquez:

Macondo Biography
Wikipedia entry

And on 100 Years of Solitude:

Wikipedia Entry
NYT Book Review (1970)
Oprah's Guide

I have been wanting to read this book so I'll start now so I can hopefully join the discussion. Thanks for setting this up!

I started last night. I was so tired I only made it through about ten pages. I remember something about magnets and a magnifying glass to be used as a weapon.

Ok, I've started... This time I'm reading it in Spanish... I might be insane. My Spanish isn't that great. Still I'm making my way through, slowly. I am still enjoying it, so much of it had faded from my last read way back in high school.

Brock wrote: "I came across this analysis and thought it was interesting:

It is the human tendency toward the fantastic and the absurd that shapes our version of reality: magical realism, then, merely captures..."

This whole thing is pretty silly.

First, a lot of things shape "our" version of reality and I dare say for most of us the tendency toward the fantastic and the absurd is the least of them. Then follows the brilliant explanation of magical realism, but I wonder if the author could give an example of something that captures "a version of reality NOT colored by myth, memory, human fantasy and our own subjectivity."

Then they declare the blurring of distinctions, whose existence I guess we're all supposed to accept as a given.

Then there's the strange observation about memory being given the same authority as history. What is history BUT a memory? Oh wait, there are "distinctions" from the previous paragraph. OK, fine, history and memory are different, but in that case shouldn't memory have a higher "authority" by default? If you remember something one way and a history book says it differently, are you supposed to trust the history book?

I don't know if it's out of context or what, but this stuff just rubbed me the wrong way. Too bad I don't actually have anything to add to the discussion of the book :D

I believe History is generally thought to have a higher authority by virtue of it being a sort of communal memory, an agreed upon series of events based on multiple memories, and therefore theoretically less prone to distortion than a single memory.

A bit too long to go line by line, but here's the gist of it:

My point was that the distinctions between memory, history and fiction are nebulous at best, and to treat them as anything else is, in fact, silly. Then you tell me not to trust memory, because it is unreliable, yet at the same time you say: "Research on memory shows that most people do not see "reality" --- instead they remember what they think they saw," which is exactly my point. If we are not to trust memory, what are we to trust? If there's ANY other reality there aside from our memory we certainly will never know it, so what IS reliable then? And who is Bloom to say that Ursula's grand grandmother did not live in 16th century, and what authority is there to tell us for certain that orange disks did not fly all over the sky if Ursula says she remembers it so?

I think that Garcia Marquez wrote to emphasize the meaning memory, not belittle it. The memory of the storyteller is the only thing that matters. If it is unreliable, it's still the most reliable thing out there, because if your memory isn't true, it's just a human mistake, but everything outside of your memory can be either a mistake or a lie.

Brock and Pavel, thanks for the conversation, gives me a lot more to think about as I read. I tend to lose myself in the narrative and not think critically during my reading. Generally my critical thinking comes after. I'm sure this conversation will add richness to my read this time!

Hi Pavel,

I am sure you were not trying to belittle my post, but not knowing you, your response made me uncomfortable. It reads like someone flaming someone rather than taking the time to build on ideas and engaging them in discussion.

I would actually never address a post or the ideas in it as silly.

I come here to relax and have fun, and engage in discussion on ideas. I am happy to build on your ideas, or these critics.

So, help me to understand your position.

Why is Marquez doing this from your perspective?

Why are Bloom and other critics silly?

If they are silly, what does rejecting them offer the reader?



From my perspective, I do think that the critic's interpretations are interesting, so I shared them.


My understanding is that you are saying we only have the reality of the book?

It reminds me of the New Criticism Literary Theorists– that literary works must be examined only on the basis of what is written in the book.

Did Marquez expect this of his readers?

In some ways this position reminds me of how many people insist that we must interpret the bible literally.

Is this what you mean?

If we must interpret Marquez only in the context of the book as a story, does this mean he has no larger purpose than to just entertain us?

I am not saying you are wrong -- because this is simply interpretation of a story.

But I do not understand your position other than your saying that Bloom and others are silly.

What does your position offer for the reader?

I'm not reading along with you guys, but I'm finding the discussion interesting. Here's an old Paris Review interview with Marquez, it happens to mention history/memory. It also contains a lot of discussion about fiction/journalism. I thought you might find it interesting.

Art of Fiction no.69

Wow, so much in there! Thanks for sharing it Patty. Sort of off topic, but his idea that journalism and literature are fundamentally the same is an interesting one. Especially given how many journalists have recently been caught passing off fiction as fact. If they had been brave enough to embrace their work as fiction and own up to it... Publish them as such, how would those pieces have been received?

I also liked the way he talked about offering specifics in a fantastic description offers legitimacy. I saw 49 flying zucchinis today. I think he is right!

Great link Patty, the Paris Review Interviews are always a great read. The Interviewer's description of Marquez is great:

García Márquez was sitting at his desk at the far end of the studio. He came to greet me, walking briskly with a light step. He is a solidly built man, only about five feet eight or nine in height, who looks like a good middleweight fighter—broad-chested, but perhaps a bit thin in the legs. He was dressed casually in corduroy slacks with a light turtleneck sweater and black leather boots. His hair is dark and curly brown and he wears a full mustache.

Also, I'm enjoying this discussion over memory but haven't read enough of to have anything to say.

Brock wrote: "Hi Pavel,

I am sure you were not trying to belittle my post, but not knowing you, your response made me uncomfortable. It reads like someone flaming someone rather than taking the time to build o..."

From what I understood, your original post was a bunch of quotes from third party analysis. You said you found it "interesting." I didn't realize this meant you were going to get offended if I called them silly.

My position, politely, is this. The analysis you cited is based on ideas that the author considers, and apparently expects everyone else to consider, axiomatic. Now, if one meets these expectations, then I'm guessing the rest of the analysis also makes sense to them. But when one doesn't - as in my case - it... just seems silly. I think I outlined my exact issues in the previous two posts.

What my position offers to reader is to read One Hundred Years of Solitude not as a "Bible of Macondo," but rather maybe as a sequel to "Metamorphosis."

Oh, man... I LOVE this book. Shel let me know you guys were discussing this book and I'm definitely thinking of picking it up again.

My question is: Are you guys really just on Chapter 2 and having your first bar fight?

If it's any help, Brock. Pavel's a great guy. I like him. Indeed, he's as opinionated -- and pointed -- as you are. I don't really see any need for an "apology" just because he thought someone ELSE's ideas were silly. (Personally, I didn't find the fragments "silly" because they were fragments about a book that folks ostensibly have gotten TWO chapters into. (At the same time, I can't call them "insightful" either coz we have to read the whole book to pass such judgments as "memory has the same authority as history." Does it? Perhaps it does now... will it by Chapter 10? I dunno.))

So, I guess my real question is: you guys gonna fight or you going to do things like discuss the author's style, the character development, stuff like that? (And in case you were wondering, I'm not the "Highlander of ideas" either, I'd just like to get a sense if we're going to spend so much thread-space/time with personal indignation over the word "silly".)

[As an aside to the onlookers to this fracas who are reading this in the original Spanish... can I just say how damn impressed -- and envious -- I am? The language in here is gorgeous and I can only imagine how it sounds in Spanish.]

I read this book years ago and spent most of the time rolling my eyes at it. I felt the book's pretense that "memory has the same authority as history" was absurd and illogical and therefore found the whole thing silly. (Yes, I found the book silly, so unless you're Garcia Marquez don't get indignant).

I'm skipping out on reading it again, but this discussion is certainly reminding me of many of the things I disliked about it. At least my memory isn't playing tricks on me about this.

At any rate, I don't see that it's so much passing judgement at chapter 2, as considering the book's fundamental premise.

Hey Hugh,
One of the things I love about Marquez is his style and humor. So Latin American! I have only read his work in English and I wondered how much more evocative it would be in Spanish. As you might expect, it is so much stronger and clearer in Spanish. Even though I am muddling my way through... Reading it out loud helps me a ton. I can see the people he is describing in my mind, they remind me of so many people in my childhood. And the storytelling reminds me so of tales I was told as a child. The reference in th Paris Review to emulating his Grandmother's style makes a ton of sense to me. Even when telling the most fantastical story, the details are so right I have to believe it. I can see where others might find magical realism silly. I had the same eye-rolling reaction to Like Water for Chocolate. I only saw the movie though... Which leads me to believe Marquez's instinct to never have this book made into a movie is dead right. I'm looking forward to discussions on the book as we progress!

I liked Like Water for Chocolate better, and I think it was because I could think of it more as fantasy or magic without the realism. Harry Potter doesn't irritate me, but no one is pretending it's real. I don't have issues with fantasy where there's time travel or hobbits who live to be 111 or whatever.

When you start messing with history or saying "this is true fact; it happened in the regular, real world" my logical brain refuses to cooperate. It's just not my style.

Magical realism does tend to be one of those love it or hate it things, and I'm interested in following the discussion to see where people come down and why.

Tracy wrote: "Which leads me to believe Marquez's instinct to never have this book made into a movie is dead right. "

Agree completely. it's one of those books that is so massive, the minute you start lopping out stories it loses what makes it such a powerful (in my opinion) skein of family history. Like lopping arms off a family tree.

Hugh, I think it's more than that... In many ways I think this is written like an oral history. Intended to be interpreted by the brain rather than absorbed by the eyes. I think the back and forth style of the story- telling and the inaccuracies of time just can't be interpreted in the same way in film. It would change it so much that it would no longer have any connection to the original.

Regan wrote: "When you start messing with history or saying "this is true fact; it happened in the regular, real world" my logical brain refuses to cooperate. It's just not my style."

I'm not really sure how this applies to One Hundred Years of Solitude, since it's no secret to anybody that Macondo is not a real town. Rather than claiming fiction to be fact, I think Marquez just wants to convince you that fiction can be truth. He wants you to lose yourself in the story. He wants you trust your grandma when she tells you a tale of magic, not roll your eyes at her. Or, if your logical mind won't allow you that, he wants you at least to remember the time when it did.

Tracy wrote: "Hugh, I think it's more than that... In many ways I think this is written like an oral history. Intended to be interpreted by the brain rather than absorbed by the eyes. I think the back and forth..."

I think the opening line to this book is one of my favorites (right up there with Moby Dick and Metamorphosis)... "Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice."

"To discover ice" is such a gorgeous punchline (which is, in its own way, a historical/cultural touchstone of invention)... but you're right, from the outset, it's all about memory and the power of memory. After all, it is not rational thought or Stoic determination that comes to the Colonel at this moment of his death, but this very particular memory (and all the attendant sensations of "ice") beyond simple nostalgia. And the next line leads us, as Memory will, to Macondo (without us yet knowing where in the world the Colonel is facing a firing squad, (which rational thought might tell you is the most important and immediate story!))

Pavel wrote: "I think Marquez just wants to convince you that fiction can be truth. He wants you to lose yourself in the story. He wants you trust your grandma when she tells you a tale of magic, not roll your eyes at her. Or, if your logical mind won't allow you that, he wants you at least to remember the time when it did. "

I get this. I'm just saying that while I like the truly magical, it doesn't work for me when it also tries to be truth. Obviously lots of people (given the book's popularity and critical acclaim) feel differently than I do.

The writing is beautiful and it is an absolutely perfect opening line.

Marquez is good at first sentences... It was inevitable: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love.
Love in the Time of Cholera

Regan wrote: "Pavel wrote: "I think Marquez just wants to convince you that fiction can be truth. He wants you to lose yourself in the story. He wants you trust your grandma when she tells you a tale of magic, n..."
This comes up for me fairly often (I started to say when reading fiction, but now it seems to apply to reading anything) when I ask myself how far I'm willing to suspend disbelief, or as Pavel says, lose myself in the story. If I'm connected to the "facticity" of historical context or even aware of the intrusion of the author's voice, then I'm less willing to go along for the ride. It takes a skillful author to weave a web that cradles us somewhere just above reality, and thus far (at least for the first two chapters), I'm suspended.

I'm not quite sure how to formulate this thought -- or thread of an idea -- but I think that different people have different capacities for what is "fantastic" but that there is also an obligation for a solid fiction writer to bring the "fantastic" to life (something a bit different from writing incandescantly about a real thing.)

For the pure fantasy of a Tolkein, the writer's challenge becomes realizing a world that is appointed with enough details that a reader who is willing to slip into that world will luxuriate in certain magic powers and fantastic creatures.

Then there are writer's for readers who love their "fiction" shaped out of what is immediately at hand -- the social realism of, say, a Zola or Dickens. Where part of the thrill for readers is seeing every detail down to the details on the Artful Dodger's coat.

Marquez (I think) exists in a middle ground which can work for some and not for others. I recall an interview (and I'm not sure if it was the Paris Review interview Patty forwarded) where Marquez said (I'm paraphrasing) that it's all about the details: that if you were going to write about flying elephants, you were better off writing about flying PINK elephants, because those details drew the reader in further. (Though as you (Regan and Pavel) have indicated that may work for some and not for others.)

Because a writer like PK Dick pitches his books into the future (as opposed to Marquez reaching backwards) he gains a certain frisson by filling in the blank of what might be possible 20 or 30 years hence.

Bottom line though: it's all in the details.

Martha wrote: "It takes a skillful author to weave a web that cradles us somewhere just above reality, and thus far (at least for the first two chapters), I'm suspended."

This is beautiful Smartykate. I love this. I've finished the first chapter (this is not the only book I'm reading) and I think I'm going to be able to stick with it this time around. It helps to come in here and read the comments. But I'm skimming over some and not reading the author stuff because since I've never read past the first twenty pages of this before I don't want anything to be given away.

Hugh wrote: "I'm not quite sure how to formulate this thought -- or thread of an idea -- but I think that different people have different capacities for what is "fantastic" but that there is also an obligation ..."

This reminds me of a couple of lines in Oscar Wilde's preface to Dorian Gray:
"The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass."

The glass Marquez presents us shows us our face but distorts it, provoking a new sort of rage.

Magical is truth. There is no other way. It is not an illusion,it is something that really happens. It is the basic different between Moses and the two scorcerers of the pharao: truth and illusion. Both had snakes (no vile porn pun intended).

Harry Potter is not magical. What is magical there? The normal people. They are rare, it is amazing the rarity.

I resort to Borges (surprise) when he talks about the difference between Tolkien and Lewis and tell Lewis is the real fantasy. Why not? In Tolkien's world Elfs and Gandalfs are as real as Elvis and Garfunkel in our world. But the dream of Alice was unique. As any metamorphosis.

Oro! Are you here to stay? I, for one, could use your perspective as we wind our way through this magical place. I think that you and Hugh are preaching the same gospel when you say that the truth is in the details (and how skillfully they are crafted). Truth mirroring fiction mirroring truth, and on and on. Now I'm ready for the next two chapters.

I dunno, very busy (and mixing the reading of Marlowe's plays and Moonstone) and sometime since i read Marquez. I have to dig after my copy of 100 years.

Another thing I recall, after many oral storytelling festivals: Colombians are ace at it. Oral storytelling is very powerful there, they still preserve the festivals, meetings, traditions, etc. This may explain well Marquez gift with those wind-carried long and soft sentences that he come with.

I started 100 Years today and I’ve made it to the end of Chapter 4. Something tells me that I’ll have trouble following the timeline that was set up in FF because I want to devour this book tonight! I LOVE IT!

I don’t have any insightful criticism to offer, but I can say that I’m surprised at how funny I’ve found it so far. I expected it to be beautifully written and eloquent, and I think it is, but I love how every now and then I’ll read something completely unexpected. Like how the gold is described to look like “dog shit,” or how a family member died from getting his “pig tail” cut off, or Jose Arcadio’s “disproportionate size.” Marquez has a sense of humor and I’m immature enough to laugh at it all.

My favorite things so far are the characters, though. Especially Jose Arcadio Buendia and Melquiades. Jose has what I’m afraid of losing. He’s an adult who still can find the magic in everyday objects. The richness of ice – “the largest diamond in the world!” – the promise and hope of what magnets have to offer, the fear of a magnifying glass...

That’s all I really have to say so far, but I’m grateful that this book was chosen and that I’ve finally taken it off my bookshelf!

Hey Leslie, No need to worry about sticking to the schedule. Go on, race ahead! I am willing to create the next discussion threads as soon as we need them. I just want to keep people talking and allow others to avoid spoilers as best as possible.

I am almost to the end of chapter 4 and I am really enjoying the details too. So far my favorite detail may be:

...and the glass with his (Melquiades) false teeth, where some aquatic plants with tiny yellow flowers had taken root.

Isn't that lovely?

I was just reading some more biographical info on Marquez and it turns out he is pretty well known as a friend of Fidel Castro.

And after a cursory search of google I see that the isolated Macondo can be seen as a utopian communist society until the arrival of big government (or in this case, the magistrate Moscote).

So if this is true what is Marquez getting at here, if anything? Can a communist utopia only exist in isolation? Does connection to the outside world always ruin the utopia? Does it matter at all to the story?

Based solely on my memory, I'd be hesitant on the Macondo as utopian communist society reading, but I need to actually revisit if I plan on continuing to participate.
On a side note, a while back Marquez confirmed that he had written a highly critical book about Castro that he had promised Fidel he would only release after Fidel's death.

Dan wrote: "I am almost to the end of chapter 4 and I am really enjoying the details too. So far my favorite detail may be:

...and the glass with his (Melquiades) false teeth, where some aquatic plants with tiny yellow flowers had taken root.

Isn't that lovely? "

Yes! I love reading about Melquiades... "almost blind by then, crumbling with decrepitude..."

What a fantastic character!

So Dan touched on this in a recent status update, but I need to rant about it here: all the Jose Arcadios are CONFUSING ME! Why can't everyone just have their own unique name??? I keep getting lost and thinking I'm reading about one character and then realize oh wait, no this is the OTHER character. It's almost as bad as those sneaky Russians who give each of their characters THREE different names!

I'm also a little bit disturbed by how young some of the girls who end up being "love interests" are....too young for my comfort level. Creepy.

Kerry wrote: "So Dan touched on this in a recent status update, but I need to rant about it here: all the Jose Arcadios are CONFUSING ME! Why can't everyone just have their own unique name??? I keep getting lost..."

Tell me about it! It only gets worse as the novel goes on. I'm still enjoying it, but I'm confused more often than not.

Kerry, the points that you mention brings to mind the disconnect readers may sometimes have when reading non-english, non-western, or even non-american literature.

We read through the lens of our cultural norms and that often impacts how we feel about a novel. In the United States we see plenty of families with sons and grandsons named after their forefathers. I'm not at all knowledgeable about South American family traditions but perhaps that is something that is quite prevalent (or perhaps was more so when this novel was written).

I think the same thing can be said of the "love interests" you find to be creepy. It wasn't that long ago that marriages took place at a time we would all be uncomfortable with. So yeah, it may be creepy to us now just as I am sure people of a past era would be appalled by some of the things we as a culture do now.

Pretty much commun. I have the same name of my father, greath father ,greatgreatfather and there goes. We have even a family curse.

Absolutely! I understand that it comes from the culture...it just takes a bit more concentration.

Jcamilo wrote: "Pretty much commun. I have the same name of my father, greath father ,greatgreatfather and there goes. We have even a family curse."

Ooooh, what's the curse? Or do you feed the curse more if you talk about it???

:)

Well, there cannot be 2 Oros. I mean João Camilo de Oliveira Torres. As soon the third is on the way, one of other João Camilo must die. Usually the older.
But my greatfather had an older brother that lived only 1 year and a few months which name was João Camilo. Since the bady died, my great father had to be the João Camilo (this does not work with the Luis Camilo, Pedro Camilo, etc. My uncles are not part of the curse).

And yes, Camilo is not a surname.

And my father is already the first João Camilo to reach 64 years. (or past 50). I am keeping him alive avoiding kids.

here is the curse :D

Wow! But you are also maybe keeping YOURSELF alive by not having kids, because you said USUALLY the older dies.

Wait though, couldn't you just name your baby something else? Or what if you had a girl, not a boy?

Oh my goodness, I'm confused again.

;)

As a young(er) teacher, I taught this book to my AP English students, and I asked them at the end to create something--a model, a piece of artwork, whatever--that physically represented the structure of this novel. When I gave them the assignment, crickets could be distinctly heard for about a full minute. Then they went to town.

What I got was pretty amazing. One student created a board game that involved lots of looping/doubling back. Another painted a gigantic vortex with various images from the novel swirling about its hidden center. A third built a tabletop hall of mirrors, with tiny lights that illuminated specific quotes from the novel embedded in the mirrors and reflecting off one another.

All of them revealed the almost centrifugal nature of the novel. In the West (and maybe this is Eurocentric), we like a linear plot of causality, or at least a clear philosophical destination, in our novels. This one is a spiral, a repeating loop that progresses in one direction: death. (Just wait until you get to the end.) The repeating character names are part of that cycling, I think.

I also remember reading somewhere that the male Buendia characters are either "Aurelianos" or "Arcadios" and that they have distinct characteristics from one another--Aurelianos are grim and fateful, while the Arcadios are more dynamic, almost volcanic?

As for the argument/discussion over the fantastical elements of this book...well, if I want more realism, I don't read a novel, I just pay attention to my own life. :)

But Kerry, would you temp the destiny? Imagine when I have to name my kid, that exactly momment, when the name Nicodemous sundenly turns into João Camilo...

Curses are Curses. Oedipus just could not take another path.

Jcamilo wrote: "But Kerry, would you temp the destiny? Imagine when I have to name my kid, that exactly momment, when the name Nicodemous sundenly turns into João Camilo...

Curses are Curses."

No, we don't want to mess with destiny.

Chris wrote: "I also remember reading somewhere that the male Buendia characters are either "Aurelianos" or "Arcadios" and that they have distinct characteristics from one another--Aurelianos are grim and fateful, while the Arcadios are more dynamic, almost volcanic? "

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you Swanny.