The specific method an author chooses to structure the narrative voice of a literary work has one particular purpose which is to provide perspective. However, when an author chooses to vary the methods of which he structures the narrative voice , its effect may significantly alter any developed meaning throughout the novel. When altering the narrative structure of a literary work, the author possesses the power to limit and manipulate the information presented to the reader. When investigating how Gabriel Garcia Marquez crafts the narrative structure in his novel, Chronicle of Death Foretold, evidence shows to evoke more than pure perspective.
Returning to his home village, the unidentified narrator is destined to bring upon the reader a failed attempt to investigate the murder of his friend, Santiago Nasar, occurring decades before. Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses a non-omniscient first-person narrator in his novel, Chronicle of a Death Foretold which immediately stifles the flow of potential points of view the reader may take right through the novel.
Marquez not only limits the chances for the reader to hold different perspectives on what is to happen, but he even sets the narrator out to assume the voice of an investigator who is incapable of recalling events with any accuracy whatsoever. “No one was certain [of anything the day of Santiago’s murder]”(Marquez, 2) nor does the narrator provide any descriptions with matching statements. The constant contradictions and even ironic events surrounding the morning of Santiago Nasar’s murder instantly deplete any sense of reliability the reader may have.
![](https://paperap.com/wp-content/themes/theme/img-rh/star.svg")
5 (339)
“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”
For example, the mother misinterprets the omens in his dream while being known as an “accurate interpreter of other people’s dreams,” (Marquez, 1). Already, from the introductory pages of the novel, Marquez throws the reader into a mind of bewilderment and questioning of the reliability of the information provided. Furthermore, the frustrating feeling of confusion and unanswered questions is not soothed in any way by the fact that the narrator recalls the story after nights of celebration and the excessive consumption of alcohol. While the narrator fails, Marquez clearly is successful in drowning the reader in contradicting statements and possible irritation with the narrator’s failure of providing reliable information. Thus, he leaves much to be questioned by the reader.
Who Is The Narrator Of Chronicle Of A Death Foretold
Nonetheless, Marquez strives for more than the simple effect of unreliability with his narrative style. While Marquez cautiously incorporates a high level of detail into the narration, the investigation is made futile by the statements of the investigator. He provides detailed descriptions of Santiago’s “Mannlicher Schoenauer .30-06 rifle… .300 Holland & Holland Magnum rifle… .22 Hornet…[and] Winchester repeater” (Marquez, 3) without commenting on the relevancy such information has to the investigation. With this, the reader is either given clues which lead to irrelevant discoveries or he is left without any clues to follow at all. Consequently, the investigation proves to be weak; the information gathered, lacks conclusion, assessment and even effortless examination.
Given a restricted perspective and evidence only acquired through sight or sound, the narrator’s investigation results in being rather incomplete and unevaluated. The narrator’s failed attempt is implemented in order to enhance the indefinite nature of Santiago’s murder case instead of providing any conclusion at all. Mainly, Marquez does this through discrepancy in the information provided by his narrator along with the lack of assessment. Previously in the novel, the narrator makes detailed descriptions of events without explaining their relevance to the case. Here again, he provides the reader with this bizarre strategy of investigation when he finds that”Many people coincided in recalling that it was a radiant morning with a sea breeze…But most agreed that the weather was funereal, with a cloudy, low sky…” (Marquez, 2). Regardless of the noticeable illogicality in the townsfolk’s statements, the narrator leaves the comment without continuing with any further assessment of the aspect. Again, the reader is reminded that Marquez uses these contradictions to point out the difficulty of piecing together the past, especially one with such distortion.
Clearly, the Marquez’s choice of a first-person narrator was to establish subjectivity. Of the scarce comments made by the narrator with intention to assess the case, the majority if not every comment is far from objective. Not only does he exclaim that “[his] personal opinion is that [Santiago] died without understanding his death” (Marquez, 118), but he also goes as far as to admit he has”a very confused memory of the festival.” (Marquez, 48) Evidently, the reader is led by a biased and bemused investigator, whom even ventures to propose his “personal opinion” (Marquez, 118) when an objective approach is vital for success. Marquez thus accomplishes to construct an apparently thorough plot, which in fact only calls for the reader to investigate and find that it lacks the fundamental elements of an investigation itself. In addition, the narrator includes no connections between the information he provides, but what’s more, he hinders the investigation by randomly offering his opinion on inconsequentialities. As a result, Marquez’s inadequate narrator highlights the indeterminateness of a case like this.
Fundamentally, Marquez crafts his narrative structure to draw attention to a core aspect of his literary work. By using an incomplete and ambiguous plot, he also emphasizes the elusive nature of investigating a murder crime of the past. Even with the detailed descriptions provided by the narrator, Marquez’s point is clear, that the fragments of the story will not fit like pieces of a puzzle. The narrator”[attempts] to put the broken mirror of memory back together from so many scattered shards.” (Marquez, 5) Hence, dissimilar to a puzzle, the broken pieces of the mirror are sharp and piecing them together is close to unachievable. The image formed from perfectly interlocking puzzle pieces is distinctly different from the shattered distortion reflected by the broken mirror. Essentially, the two metaphors sum up the underlying theme of reassembling the broken past which Marquez deems is near impossible. (1,006)
Chronicle Of A Death Foretold Essay Topics. (2019, Dec 05). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-chronicles-of-a-death-foretold/
