Thursday, November 11, 2010
OHYOS: Immortality & The Written Word
Throughout OHYOS the themes of death and the written word have occurred again and again. More specifically, however, they have been united and related multiple times. First, with Melquíades who says that the sanskrit writings ought to be translated after his death. Then with Fernanda, who decided that while she waited for death to take her that she would write letters to her children. And lastly with one other person Amaranta Ursula? not quite sure also write letters. I think that immortality THROUGH the written word is the theme trying to be portrayed by Garbiel Garciá Marquez. For example as José Arcadio Segundo tries to decipher Melquíades sanskrit writings, Melquíades literally reappears. Whether or not this is real or fantastical it furthers the idea that Melquíades is immortal as a result of his writing. Another theme seen within OHYOS is memory (or lack thereof) and its relation to history. Therefore I think that when Marquez relates the written word to immortality he might be alluding to the fact that many things are only known now because others have recorded them at some point in history. Thereby through it being written down, the past can live on and be remembered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Russell. Life may be fleeting, as illustrated by the many generations of the Buendias family (and the many many Joses and Aurelianos), but the written word is permanent. It cannot be altered, as memory can, another contrast in permanence. Melquiades' transcripts, although in a foreign language (Sanskrit), are permanent and unchanging. Memory of the past does, however, as illustrated by the Banana Massacre which was conveniently wiped out of the memory of the locals. Amaranta writing letters to her children who are already dead are her efforts to preserve a piece of herself and her soul for the future and posterity - it is her attempt at immortality and the closest thing humans can get to immortality. In addition, Melquiades was an alchemist and loved experimenting with metals to turn them into gold, which symbolizes immortality. He thought he was a failure in this area, but really, his manuscripts are immortal - he lives on through them, and thus he can be said to have achieved his ultimate goal. Hence, Marquez's point about the written word and immortality is that humans may not be able to physically become immortal, but their souls and thoughts and ideas may be preserved through the written word.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with Russell's post. In chapter 19, we see that the past can easily be distorted and changed as it is written down. While Gabriel and Aureliano remember Colonel Aureliano Buendía as a real person, the other men and the proprietress agree that he is merely "a figure invented by the government as a pretext for killing Liberals" (390). They also cite the judicial documents and primary school textbooks that claim the banana company did not exist while anyone with a memory of the old Macondo would know that this is false. I believe that Marquez is trying to show that history can easily get lost and that the written word, for better or for worse, dictates what people know about the past rather than memory. People blindly follow written text and assume that it is true without considering that it might be a skewed version of the truth or in the case of the massacre, the government's attempt to wash the blood from its hands.
ReplyDeletei also agree with russell. Meliquades seems to be one of the most important characters in the book. he dies relatively early in the text yet his room remains "meliquades" room and at some point or another there is always someone attempting to decipher or read through his parchments. in this sense mel becomes immortal because he is always relevant in the story as somebody is always attempting to decipher his hidden messages. Hannah also proves how not having written word can distort the image of certain characters. CAB loses some of his recognition in chapter 19 and because there is very little written about him it becomes up to oral tradition to decipher who he was. Mel however will always be mel because he wrote it down, forever preserving his awesomeness.
ReplyDeleterussell-good point about memory
ReplyDeletein order to not be repetitious im going to go out on a limb... this is supposed to be the book that saves all books. maybe marquez knew it would be, and is trying to say that by writing this story, it will live on forever, and therefore fiction can't die.
the written word is also connected to death through prophecies. they always know when theyre going to die bc it has been written.
justin i like your idea about melquiades and how he lives on forever even though hes dead (esp since he comes back as a ghost) but im just not sure why. why him? he wrote the sanskript that will, once deciphered, tell the people of macondo their fate. is he some divine figure? im not sure if its just supposed to be accepted that he can tell the future, but his status as a gypsy during his physical lifetime confuses me as to why he lives forever. any ideas?
amaranta offers to bring letters to the deceased -so there is this idea of communicating after death. but how does that relate to the immortality of the written word if dead people are going to read it... the people living still wont remember them.
in addition... we know whats going to happen. the start of each chapter alludes to something in the future. so we arent read it bc we cant wait to see what happens - the narrator tells us what is to come. instead, we read it to see the events that led to the final outcome, and interpret it for ourselves. this theme of interpretation and translation is made clear by jose arcadio segundo who works to put the pieces of the prophecy. it is not in his native language and he therefore has to translate and interpret for himself - just like we do.
ReplyDeletequestion - it took so long for someone to die in macondo, but once someone did, death spiralled out of control and became unstoppable as the people of macondo died at an increasing speed. why do you think there is this change, and how does it relate to the written word?
i think it relates because when everyone was alive, they had no reason to write, everyone was there to remember the events. however, by chapter 19, people dont even remember the buendias. therefore, they need to write to be remembered - even though they are going to die, their writing and the history within their stories become permanent
elizabeth: "the written word is also connected to death through prophecies. they always know when theyre going to die bc it has been written." i really like this and i think that this exemplifies the theme that "nothing can be changed," which parallels the sound and the fury a lot. this represents the cycle of hopelessness in macondo, and the sad knowledge that nothing these characters do can ever change their fates because it is already and forever in writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Russell and Demetra, too. Like Elizabeth, instead of adding onto what they said, I'm also going to go out on a limb: I think the relationship between death and the written word is that the characters in OHYOS use the written word as a means of coping with death. As we all know, Márquez's book is less about an end and more about the means to the end. In my opinion, this not only goes for readers, but also for the characters in the novel - they too know that Macondo will experience "its fatal blow." For example, Ursula continuously makes comments about how she notices that time is not moving forward but is in fact regressing. The characters therefore use the written word to record what they have experienced thus far in Macondo. They would rather remember (and have future generations remember) the "good" events that have happened so far instead of the "bad" events that are soon to come. It is for this reason that before each main character dies, they have some experience with the written word. For instance, in the case of Melquiades, his parchments describe the experience that the Macondo people had with the gypsies - not about the heat wave that struck the area. I'm not too sure if I did the best job of describing what I'm thinking, but hopefully it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteEmily, no mouse comment makes me sad.
ReplyDeleteWell, anywho....
I really like Dani Kohn's idea of written word as a way of coping with death. To a degree I feel that writing what you feel makes it possible to connect with the tangible when something so intangible is happening. It makes you believe that the life you have lived has not stopped at your death, but your presence and your imprint on the world will stand in permanence throughout time. The women of Macondo write letters to their loved ones before the death, even if they may have already died and it seems to me that it says that my feelings won't end with me but they will live on.
I agree with Russell.
ReplyDeleteTo add, I think marquez is trying to parallel the history of Macondo and the presence or absence of written word. Many aspects of its history were written in books, but most of the legends and fantastical were passed down through oral tradition. Also, there were different interpretations of the actual history passed down through oral tradition (case in point, the Great Banana Massacre's varying statistics).
So I think Marquez is trying to say here that in order to record the legends and familial "history" and legacy of Macondo, as pertaining to the Buendia family, it must be written in letters. because what makes that community what it is is the strong presence of folklore and tradition. So it is very important to preserve that, especially in a changing world, by passing on the stories to the next generation.
In short, Marquez seems to be saying that the changing times necessitate writing in every level of society (not just historians), in order to preserve the beautiful legends that created Macondo to start with. In the changing world, posterity should not lose the essence of Macondo merely to mold with the rest of the world.
This novel is essentially like the "Neverending Story" by Michael Ende. in that novel, the protagonist reads a story while living it out (are we are reading about him reading the book and living it out). Here, in OHYOS, we are reading the novel, the characters are not only living history but also reading the history (in the parchment)
ReplyDeleteI like the point about the written word and prophesy. I wrote my American Lit paper on Moby Dick and the Naked and the Dead, and Shakespearean references were big in both of them and suggested that the characters in each book were actors on a stage, acting out a script already written, their fates already sealed. There's no Shakespeare in OHYOS, but Melquiades' texts evoke the same thought. Also, because this is in many ways a reboot of the Bible - from Genesis (Macondo's birth) to Revelation (the apocalypse), we also already know what happens from the beginning. And, like the Bible, Melquiades' texts and OHYOS tell the history of humanity, something which we wouldn't have remembered otherwise that. But, just as the Bible is ambiguous on a lot of points, so are Melquiades' texts and OHYOS. They're all open to a lot of interpretation, and our history remains a point of controversy. Or something.
ReplyDelete