I can’t be the only one who read half of this book with my jaw hanging open.  It is truly an absurd chronicle, which is why it doesn’t surprise me that it is so commonly taught by IB teachers. It also doesn’t surprise me that Kafka was such an inspiration for Garcia-Marquez, because this book is crawling with insanities.

I thought that it was interesting how time works in a cyclical fashion in the novel. We start the novel with the day that Santiago Nasar dies, go through the story, and then end up at the day he dies again. It adds a lot to the story-telling element of the novel, but the progression doesn’t make any logical sense. All of the information given at the end about the day he died could have easily been thrown into the first two chapters, so why make it cycle back at all? Is this an element of magical realism, or is it representative of how the narrator is receiving information? It’s strange but interesting to think about.

I feel like every time I re-read this book I will discover new information that blows my mind while also uncovering part of a new theme, or just a detail. It reminds me of Atonement in that way.

The way religion kept coming into the story was quite interesting to me, and I find it hard to believe that Garcia-Marquez didn’t intend it to be a commentary.  The bishop sailed past the town that is offering him everything that they can in a performative routine as he does every year. Angela, the only one who leaves town, seems to have a real issue with this. After Pedro and Pablo confessed to killing Santiago to Father Amador, they say that they are innocent. Father Amador replies, “Perhaps before God”. Father Amador was also responsible for the botched autopsy performed on Santiago Nasar. While the findings were medically helpful, it was inadmissible in court and poorly performed. I understand why Cristo Bedoya didn’t perform the autopsy, but there was another medical student there on vacation who would’ve had more up-to-date knowledge on how to not butcher a corpse. I’m pretty sure Father Amador is the one who knew about the attack but got scared and just rang a bell instead, but that might’ve been Colonel Aponte. I’m not sure if Garcia-Marquez has a personal gripe with religion, or perhaps he just wrote what he saw while he lived in this town, but it is clear that the religious figures of Sucre, Columbia have a cult around them while being woefully inadequate at their jobs.

While magical realism is still a topic that I am trying to come to terms with, I think it works so well within this book. At its core, magical realism is strange things being told as fact, and that perfectly describes the events the led to Santiago’s death, his death, and the events after. Even the judge over the case seemed wildly perplexed by the entire encounter.

Strangely, my biggest question is still who Angela’s attacker could be. Is it someone we met? Is it someone we didn’t? Does Garcia-Marquez even know? All I know is that this book keeps my mind up at night.