What I dont understand is that how killing Santiago was ever going to retrieve the displaced honor of the Vicario family. It wasn't as if Angela was going to be able to get back her virginity if Santiago was killed. It seemed like a waste of a life and the fact that Angela's word was taken without any evidence or it actually happening frustrated me because the entire time Santiago was clueless of the situation and he might have not been the culpret either. It also frustrates me that if Angela did lose her virginity to Santiago as she says, why does she not face the same consequence of death as Santiago. It was indeed morally unfair to Santiago Nasar.
The novel resembles a mystery. We immediately learn that Santiago Nasar is going to die and continue reading to find out how and why this event will occur. However, Chronicle of a Death Foretold is not a chronicle; the narrative does not present the events chronologically, as the title misleadingly suggests. The first chapter recounts the morning of the assassination by two brothers, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, but versions of the morning are retold from various different viewpoints throughout the rest of the book. The reader is shown repeatedly the circumstances of Santiago Nasar's murder, but the overarching question of Santiago Nasar's guilty is never answered.
The novel uses a noticeable use of many sureal events or ideas and Marquez purposely does this. For example, the saying that someone could glow like aluminum seemed very peculiar to me. Also, much of the narrative seems to be comprised of repeated events that seem to carry ambiguous symbolic meaning. For example, the narrator repeatedly highlights the disputes over what the weather was like on the day of Santiago Nasar's murder. Some people think it was nice out and others believe that it rained. But significance of the rain is left unclear.
The novel reminds me of the difficulty of understanding events as they...