How could the text be read and interpreted differently by two different readers? | Chronicle Of A Death Foretold

Irrespective of the author’s perspective, a book is interpreted differently by each reader, thus, how it is judged varies from person to person. The readers’ perspective can be easily influenced by their age, gender, culture, nationality, or even by their personal experience to some extent. The readers may also judge a book while relating themselves to one of the characters which largely influences their interpretation of the novel.

A good example to justify the aforementioned statements is the novel “Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.” The book is majorly based on “honor killing.”The readers might suggest that since the novel is a lot about violence and certain phrases used in the novel are highly unpleasant, it can cause harm to the minds of the juveniles. It exhibits cruelty, which is not appropriate for a young person to read. In addition to this, because the novel is based on honor killing, it may be considered misleading by certain readers who are against such practices. However, some readers may suggest that it was ethical for the Vicario Brothers to kill Santiago Nasar because he was accused of being engaged in premarital sex with their sister, Angela Vicario. The orthodox, patriarchal society in Latin America believes that a family’s honor and social status is diminished if the women of the house are raped or engage in premarital sex, willingly. The society judges a man’s ability to protect his family. Therefore, a man must kill those who damaged the honor of his family. In order to portray their anger towards Santiago Nasar, it was the duty of the Vicario brothers to take his life. However, some readers may suggest that it was wrong for the Vicario brothers to kill Santiago Nasar because he was their friend. They may suggest that the Vicario brothers should have forgiven their friend.

In the novel, the Vicario brothers have been obligated by the rules set by the society to kill their friend, Santiago Nasar. The two men, however, did not want to take his life. The readers may suggest that if the Vicario brothers were not willing to murder anyone, they should not have been so conservative. Instead, they should have forgiven their friend. Also, Santiago Nasar was murdered without himactually understanding the reason behind such cruelty. The readers may believe that Santiago Nasar should have been interrogated before concluding anything. It is possible that Angela Vicario was dishonest with her family and blamed Santiago assuming that the Vicario brothers would not take an action against their friend. Santiago Nasar was shocked when he was murdered, as portrayed by the author in the novel. If Santiago Nasar was not innocent, he would have known that he was going to be assaulted. The fact that the man was confused when he was killed forces the readers to question Angela Vicario’s confession to her family. When Santiago Nasar was informed that he was going to be killed by the Vicario brothers, “he turned pale and lost control in such a way that it was impossible to think that he was pretending.” (Marquez, Gabriel Garcia. Chronicle of a Death Foretold- Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial La Oveja Negra Ltda, 1981. Print.) This statement mentioned in the novel shows that Santiago Nasar may have been accused of something he did not do. “I don’t understand a Goddamned thing,” (Marquez, Gabriel Garcia. Chronicle of a Death Foretold- Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial La Oveja Negra Ltda, 1981. Print.) said Santiago Nasar. If he was the man who took the virginity of Angela Vicario, he would have known what he was being killed for. The readers may agree with the statement mentioned by the author in the novel, “he died without understanding his death.” (Marquez, Gabriel Garcia. Chronicle of a Death Foretold- Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial La Oveja Negra Ltda, 1981. Print.) Therefore, the readers may suggest that the characters in the novel reacted hurriedly in certain situations.

Honor killing was not just happening in the patriarchal society. Even today, such cases are reported nearly every day. For example, in the year 2014, a 14 year old girl was murdered by her fiancé, in Pakistan. She was accused of having premarital relations. The man believed this to have caused harm to the honor of his family. He could not bear such a dishonorable act and thus, he decided to take her life. He believed that this was a disgrace to the family’s honor and in order to protect his family’s honor, he had to kill her. What is even more saddening is the fact that it is very easy for the offenders to safely exit the case of honor killing.

Women are expected to remain pure, obedient and virginal at marriage. However, the male members of the society are not bound with any such rules. Some readers may suggest that society’s gender biased opinion regarding premarital sex violates basic human rights- rights to live. They may suggest that honor killing is brutal abuse of human rights. Readers who are against such practices are likely to believe that death penalty should be for more serious crimes. The society has different rules set for different genders which may not be acceptable by certain readers. People can’t murder others in the name of “culture”, “religion”, or “tradition.” Culture and religion are being misused. One’s culture may be similar to the culture of a group of other individuals but the idea of “honor killing” is always subjective.