# Reading > Forum Book Club >  September/Marquez Book: 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'

## Scheherazade

We are reading _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ by Marquez in September. 

Please post your thoughts and questions on the book in this thread.


Book Club Procedures

----------


## Erna

I'm approx. halfway, and like the book. Not that I think it's terrific, but it's worth to be read. I think it's a little boring, the same things are happening over again. 

But I really like the absurd things happening sometimes, out of the blue, that makes the read funny.

And am I the only or are there more people mixing up the names of the family members and look back at the pedrigree at the beginning of the book?

----------


## bazarov

> And am I the only or are there more people mixing up the names of the family members and look back at the pedrigree at the beginning of the book?


Maybe too many of Jose Aureliano Buendia and Jose Arcadio Buendia...Sometimes you're not sure who is father and who is son..

----------


## papayahed

> Maybe too many of Jose Aureliano Buendia and Jose Arcadio Buendia...Sometimes you're not sure who is father and who is son..


I'm wondering why the Author chose such similar names?? That's my biggest problem so far.

I've read this book previously. As I'm rereading I keep confusing this book and "Like Water for Chocolate".

----------


## Nightshade

I didnt like love in time of cholera but Ive been reading and not taking part for a while so Ive ordered it and we'll see.

----------


## Shakira

The absurd things that happen in the book as well as the repititive names of the characters are an important feature of Marquez's Postmodern writing. Marquez was against the conservative techniques of the Modernist writers. His "absurd" incidents or the Magic Realism are the heart & soul of this book.

Also in the family tree did anyone notice that inspite of Jose Arcadio being the eldest son, his name appears after Colonel Aureliano Buendia's name. This Marquez has done to play on the reader's psychie.

If I'm wrong then please anyone correct me regarding this.

----------


## Taliesin

We think that there is a reason to why there are seven charaters with the same name - we think that the author wanted the readers to mix them up. They are similar in their actions too, don't you think. Both Aureliano and Arcadia are kind of archetypic figures, don't you think?

----------


## Boris239

Marquez repeats the names to show how the whole village is separated from the real life and how all events will be repeated. After all the affair of the last of Buendias with his aunt, reminds us of what has already happened before.

----------


## Erna

> The absurd things that happen in the book as well as the repititive names of the characters are an important feature of Marquez's Postmodern writing. Marquez was against the conservative techniques of the Modernist writers. His "absurd" incidents or the Magic Realism are the heart & soul of this book.


That's the part I like the most, the Magic Realism, the unexpected...




> Also in the family tree did anyone notice that inspite of Jose Arcadio being the eldest son, his name appears after Colonel Aureliano Buendia's name. This Marquez has done to play on the reader's psychie.


I saw that, but thought it was just me, and didn't really think about a possible reason. As he wanted me to be confused, it worked out  :Wink:

----------


## Scheherazade

Started reading this one today. Another unforgettable openning from Marquez:


> Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.


Like in _Love In Time of Cholera_, the book starts in such a way that you cannot put it aside. I have only read two chapters so far but my belief in the strength of his story telling techniques is ascertained already. However, hope this story will be able to prove more worthy than the _Cholera_.

----------


## Idril

I just started this on wednesday and it's very different from what I was expecting, it's incredibly bizarre, but bizarre in a good way, in a magical way. It is hard to put down once you started, I started it thinking I would just read until Schokokeks got her copy of _Setting Free the Bears_ but I'm almost half done with _Solitude_ now and I just can't possibly imagine how this is all going to end so I think I'm going to do something I never do, read two books at the same time.

----------


## Scheherazade

That is the beauty of Marquez books, I think. Even though they are translated, one can feel his power over the language; he is such an amazing story teller. I really wish I could read his books in original as well; they must be even more beautiful.

----------


## Idril

> I really wish I could read his books in original as well; they must be even more beautiful.


I'm sure they would be but even in translation, the pictures he paints are so lyrical and powerful, so stark and yet so full, if that makes any sense.

----------


## superunknown

I read it in Spanish about a year ago. It's a great book and one of the pinnacles of Latin American literature. (which, by the way, is REALLY worth exploring if you liked this book: there's Garcia Marquez, and there's also Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, Mario Vargas Llosa, Ernesto Sabato, Carlos Fuentes...) The end is fantastic (in both senses of the world).

----------


## Erna

I finished the book a couple of days ago. I really liked the book, well-written and whenever it starts to get boring, Garcia Marquez brings in something unexpected. That's what I liked the best.

The hardest part for me was the beginning, when not knowing where the slow story was going to. But maybe that's just me and having a busy time...

I really liked the end of the book!

----------


## Scheherazade

What's Amaranta's problem? Why does she keep refusing the people she seems to love?

----------


## Idril

I wondered that too. She was so cunning in regards to Pietro Crespi and then when she ultimaltely won, she shut herself up in her room and refused to see him. I thought maybe it was her guilt, you know maybe you plot to get something you want, you maybe do something you know isn't completely above board and then you when get what it is you want, you suddenly feel ashamed at the method in which you got it. I thought perhaps once she finally won Pietro, she felt guilty for all the murderous thoughts she had about Rebeca but that doesn't really fit with her personality at all, she was a cold woman. And then there's Colonel Gerineldo Marquez, there's no reason why she should've felt the need to reject him. 

Do you think it's a case of catholic guilt? She's attracted to these men, she encourages them to a certain extent but when she realizes they return her affections, she panics because she knows it will lead to impure thoughts and actions? I don't know, I'm really reaching here but it's a theory. 

I suppose it's just the curse of solitude that seems to haunt that family, nobody can be happy for very long and no one seems capable of having a good, healthy relationship with spouses or children or siblings or anyone really.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Do you think it's a case of catholic guilt? She's attracted to these men, she encourages them to a certain extent but when she realizes they return her affections, she panics because she knows it will lead to impure thoughts and actions? I don't know, I'm really reaching here but it's a theory.


I am not sure if it is Catholic guilt... because they don't seem particularly bothered with religion as a family; not to that extreme.

She just seems to avoid commitment when it comes to the crunch.


> I suppose it's just the curse of solitude that seems to haunt that family, nobody can be happy for very long and no one seems capable of having a good, healthy relationship with spouses or children or siblings or anyone really.


Yes, they seem incapable of commitment and stability for long periods of time but it feels as if they bring it on themselves. They are so restless.

----------


## Idril

> I am not sure if it is Catholic guilt... because they don't seem particularly bothered with religion as a family; not to that extreme.


Yeah, I knew it was a stretch and I fully acknowledge they didn't seem to be all that devout but then again, they were grooming one of the boys to be Pope so I thought perhaps...




> Yes, they seem incapable of commitment and stability for long periods of time but it feels as if they bring it on themselves.


Oh, they do! It's frustrating because it seems like at some point they just decide they're done and that's that. They seem to be a very self-involved lot.  :Rolleyes:  The only one with any staying power is Ursula.

----------


## papayahed

100 years of solitude. What does that refer too?

----------


## Pensive

Finally, it's Friday. I am going to start it today!

----------


## Scheherazade

> 100 years of solitude. What does that refer too?


I think it refers to family members' inability form lasting, meaningful relationships; hence, they all end up living in 'solitude', without achieving any real contact with others. I am still reading the book but probably it is the history of the family over 100 years?

I came across this passage about Amaranta (Ursula's thoughts on her) last night. What do you guys make of it?


> Amaranta, however, whose hardness of heart frightened [Ursula], whose concentrated bitterness made her bitter, suddenly became clear to her in the final analysis as the most tender woman who had ever existed, and she understood with pitying clarity that the unjust tortures to which she had submitted Pietro Crespi had not been dictated by a desire for vengeance, as everyone had thought, nor had the slow martyrdom with which she had frustrated the life Colonel Gerineldo Marquez been determined by the gall of her bitterness, as everyone had thought, but that both actions had been mortal struggle between a measureless love and an invincible cowardice, and that the irrational fear that triumphed in the end.

----------


## bazarov

> 100 years of solitude. What does that refer too?


I think it's hunderd years of family Buendia. None of them were actually happy.

----------


## Idril

> I think it's hunderd years of family Buendia. None of them were actually happy.


I get the impression Ursula could've been quite happy if her family would just behave and stop getting involved in revolutions and succumbing to weird obsessions and making inappropriate romantic choices.  :Rolleyes: 




> I came across this passage about Amaranta (Ursula's thoughts on her) last night. What do you guys make of it?


I don't know if I buy that. We were privy to Amaranta's thoughts regarding Rebeca and Pietro and those were not thoughts of unmeasurable love, they would more accurately be described as murderous thoughts. I guess I can see the bit about her cowardice, I do believe she was terrified of happiness, terrified at the thought of being loved and possibly eventually hurt but I don't buy that deep down she was a generous, loving person, she never exhibited that in any aspect of her life.

----------


## papayahed

> I don't know if I buy that. We were privy to Amaranta's thoughts regarding Rebeca and Pietro and those were not thoughts of unmeasurable love, they would more accurately be described as murderous thoughts. I guess I can see the bit about her cowardice, I do believe she was terrified of happiness, terrified at the thought of being loved and possibly eventually hurt but I don't buy that deep down she was a generous, loving person, she never exhibited that in any aspect of her life.



I think I disagree, Amaranta raised all the kids even though none of them were her own. She really had nothing of her own.




> I think it's hunderd years of family Buendia. None of them were actually happy.


That would be counted from the time that they settled Macondo right? I haven't finished the book yet. At first I thought it refered to Ursula but she lived way passed 100.

i'm still trying to figure out what happened to Remedios the beauty (she's the one that ascended right?) can there be a natural phenomenon that happened?




> Yeah, I knew it was a stretch and I fully acknowledge they didn't seem to be all that devout but then again, they were grooming one of the boys to be Pope so I thought perhaps...


I think that was Fernanda's doing, she was the only one that I think really followed religion. She would have made a great Nun.

----------


## Idril

> I think I disagree, Amaranta raised all the kids even though none of them were her own. She really had nothing of her own.


But she raised them without any real affection or warmth. It never seemed like it was out of the goodness of her heart that she did it, it was mostly because that was her role in the family. I admit she had moments of affection or something almost approaching warmth but that was more the exception than the rule. I just found her to be a very cold and unsympathetic character so I'm going to be a little reluctant to acknowledge her bitterness and cruelty were because she was really filled with measureless love even though that's obviously what Marquez wanted us to see but what does he know, he's just the author.  :Wink:   :FRlol:  




> I think that was Fernanda's doing, she was the only one that I think really followed religion. She would have made a great Nun.


I thought it was Ursula who decided the one child should be Pope and I remember thinking it was odd because before that she hadn't seemed that devout. I could certainly be wrong about that though and really, it doesn't matter because I don't really think religion and christian guilt is what motivated Amaranta, I was just thinking outloud. I should maybe stop doing that.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## papayahed

I found some reading group guides online, this question seemed one of the more interesting questions:




> On the first page we are told that "The world was so recent that many things lacked names." What is the importance of names and of naming (of people, things, and events) in the novel?

----------


## Erna

> I came across this passage about Amaranta (Ursula's thoughts on her) last night. What do you guys make of it?


I think it makes sense when thinking about Amarantas behaving to men. I think she was afraid of connecting herself to somebody else. Deep inside she wants it and loves the men, but she doesn't dare to have a real relationship, for the rest of her live.




> I found some reading group guides online, this question seemed one of the more interesting questions:
> _On the first page we are told that "The world was so recent that many things lacked names." What is the importance of names and of naming (of people, things, and events) in the novel?_


For the names of people this is quite clear. Family member are called Aureliano or Arcadio again and again. And all have the same character, besides the twins, which may have mixed up their names.

----------


## Idril

> I think it makes sense when thinking about Amarantas behaving to men. I think she was afraid of connecting herself to somebody else. Deep inside she wants it and loves the men, but she doesn't dare to have a real relationship, for the rest of her live.


I think it makes sense in that instance too. She did clearly have feelings for those men in the beginning, she pursued them in a way, she enjoyed their company but when it became obvious that they returned her affections, she just snapped. She's afraid of getting close, of letting herself be loved and I don't know if that's out of fear of rejection or just that she doesn't feel worthy of their love but something stops her from letting herself be happy.

She probably doesn't feel worthy of their love because she knows, deep down, she's just a bitter old woman.  :Wink:   :FRlol:  But seriously, I think even if she had married, she would still have ended up a bitter old woman, I truly think that was her nature, a family curse, so to speak, that she couldn't avoid.





> For the names of people this is quite clear. Family member are called Aureliano or Arcadio again and again. And all have the same character, besides the twins, which may have mixed up their names.


There was a line in the novel, where Ursula realizes that time doesn't pass, it just turns in a circle and I think the repetition of names embodies that theory. It's not just the names that are repeated, it's the tragedy, the emotional remoteness and the obsessiveness that reoccur generation after generation. Sometimes I think if they just named a kid Bob or Mary, everything would be alright.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## papayahed

Holy toledo!! I finished this book in the assigned month!! I'm not sure that has ever happened. I have a few questions but I'll wait til more people are done.

----------


## Scheherazade

Finished reading it today: Wow! 

A breath taking, dazzling story, which reminds me of 1001 Arabian Nights with its creativity and fluidity... and Marquez is a master of story telling. 

The ending really caught me by surprise!

----------


## Nightshade

Finally Ive started it about 1/4 of the way through--- and so far I really like it. It reminds me alot of Allande's house of spirits which confused m a bit when I first read it but I like this one more. 
Just though Id put siomthing down as I want to be included in the live thing on this one. But I have limited internet till next week.
Can I ask one thing though , can anyone tell me what Jose Arcadio B----- (cant rember the spelling  :Rolleyes:  ) is saying when hes speaking latin, and where did he learn the latin anyway??
And I suppose Ill find this out when I get to the end but does more than one of them face the firing squad because one minute its saying Colonle Aurionios and the next its saying arcadio  :Confused:

----------


## optimisticnad

i read this book approximately about a two years ago, i absolutely loved theopening lines. i iked this book so smuch that i read love in the time of cholera but i didnt like that so much. the only problem i had with 100 years was that it was so confusing-i mean the names, keeping track of whose who, whose sleeping with who, whose the father of who...etc. etc. lol. but its excellent. should be made compulsory along with the works of Chekhov and Dosteoevsky. Im movign to Russi. thers something in the water they drink!

----------


## bazarov

> i read this book approximately about a two years ago, i absolutely loved theopening lines. i iked this book so smuch that i read love in the time of cholera but i didnt like that so much. the only problem i had with 100 years was that it was so confusing-i mean the names, keeping track of whose who, whose sleeping with who, whose the father of who...etc. etc. lol. but its excellent. should be made compulsory along with the works of Chekhov and Dosteoevsky. Im movign to Russi. thers something in the water they drink!


If I get it correct, you've just said that Marquez is as good as Dostoevsky...You know, that is an insult! For Dostoevsky, of course.
But, I agree in one thing; there really is something in the water(vodka :Biggrin:  ) they drink...

----------


## optimisticnad

i didnt say Marquez is as good as Dost, just said that both should be made compulsory and theres degress of...cumpulsion? :-) Iv only read The idiot by Dost. but loved it, was diasppointed by the ending though meaning i didnt get my happily ever after romance. BUt yeh, Dost. is way better than Marq.
(do they really have vodka in their water? :-) Must give it a try.)

----------


## jbassett

This book is amazing and so surreal. I hated Jose having to live under the tree for so long.

----------


## Idril

> This book is amazing and so surreal. I hated Jose having to live under the tree for so long.


Surreal is the word for it and yes, the living under the tree thing was among one of the strangest things in the book but apparently, he liked it there because his "ghost" or spirit or soul or what have you, continued to hang out there after his death.

----------


## papayahed

I'm wondering if any of it could have been avoided - based on the ending of the book?




> In interviews, the author has repeatedly stated that the title came to him only during the final stages of his writing the book. And as he figured out the chronology, he realized that the narrative covered some 140 or 150 years. The amount, though, would have been a mouthful for a title. So he settled simply on 100 (which, in Spanish, is just one syllable, Cien).
> 
> The "solitude" part he explains thus: "solitude" (soledad) is the opposite of "solidarity" (solidaridad). He depicts a family and a town so caught up in their individual solitudes that they forget about solidarity. As we all know, a family, an institution, or a nation cannot survive without some sense of solidarity. It also bears mention that Garcia Marquez came of age at a time when Existentialist ideas about human solitude were very much in the air.
> 
> The title, in Spanish, is very succinct and beautiful: Cien anos de soledad


.

..................

Another discussion group: 
"Concerning the episode when Remedios the Beauty ascends to heaven: I think we have to take it straight, accept it on face value as something that "really happens," in the same way that other such magical events really do happen in the course of the novel. If we are to compare it to anything at all in Christianity, the most appropriate would be the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, which, in Hispanic countries, is a national holiday and is part of Catholic folklore. Many a Hispanic Catholic home has on display a small image of Mary rising to heaven. The capital of Paraguay, moreover, is Asuncion, Spanish for "Assumption."

Garcia Marquez humorously refashions this standard, idealized image. Remedios waves good-bye as she rises (something you wouldn't normally associate with this sort of occurrence), and she clings to Fernanda del Carpio's monogrammed sheets, which she takes with her. Meanwhile, back on the ground, mean-spirited Fernanda is more upset about the loss of her precious family linens than about the disappearance of a Buendia family member! The entire scene should be taken as a kind of joke. "

----------


## nagmalitongyawa

The repetitiveness (in names and experiences of the characters) dominant in the novel is an allegory of how Marquez (and his society's way of thinking) see their reality. Repetitiveness and futility. Whatever you do (either you follow the rules or break them) the end result is still the same -- whether you love passionately or be apathetic, whether you're a hero or a coward, etc.

Hey, check out this new GG Marquez thread:
Chasing Gabriel Garcia Marquez

----------


## JoanS

M&#225;rquez was hardly influenced by Faulkner, as like Vargas Llosa and others.. frankly i think if faulkner never would written his books, M&#225;rquez would stay the periodist for a rest of his life.

----------


## NickAdams

> Márquez was hardly influenced by Faulkner, as like Vargas Llosa and others.. frankly i think if faulkner never would written his books, Márquez would stay the periodist for a rest of his life.


Did you mean, " ... heavily influenced ... "?

----------


## JoanS

> Did you mean, " ... heavily influenced ... "?



yes, i meant that.. sorry

----------

