The passage of time is both
ever-present and inconsistent or non-linear. There are watches and
clock towers and specific dates and times for many events. On the other
hand, events far into the future ("many years later, as he faced the
firing squad") or events from long ago are often woven into the
narrative, characters live to be 150 years old, it rains for nearly five
years straight (four years, eleven months and two days to be precise).
The Buendia family, and their house, don't really seem to progress with
time as much as their events fold back on top of themselves. Family
members fall into the habit of taking things apart just to be able to
put things back together. They repeat the patterns of their ancestors.
The
story is incredibly beautifully told — I loved the repeated refrain of
solitude — but found the characters rather unintrospective and not
particularly interesting.
In the end, the final descendant
decodes the old manuscripts written in Sanskrit by the traveling
alchemist, and discovers it was a foretelling of the events of the
family, ending with him. Is this why time felt fluid, because it was
trying to conform to the foretelling? Is this why the characters fell
into their ruts, repeated patterns? Is everything predetermined? Or is
it a broader critique of how we are all products of our past and our
traumas? A little bleak, not quite my style of theme.
Thursday, November 24, 2022
Review: One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment