4 ms·

Can someone tell me what is the theme of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" as applied to modern society? I read the book awhile ago and appreciated greatly the va

Can someone tell me what is the theme of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" as applied to modern society? I read the book awhile ago and appreciated greatly the various character sketches. Unfortunately, the literary criticism that I sought out back then at liberal arts college, focused mostly on the metaphor of the European colonialism on Latin America (industrialization of the town with the rubber-plant, and the subsequent massacre of the residents after some kind of rubber-plant revolution, consequences of military rule and violent overthrows as embodied by Colonel Buendia and circular nature of the history, Spanish colonialism past long felt after Latin America became independent). Tbh, I'm not really interested in the whole multiculturalism and ethnic studies rehashing the white guilt trope. However, I find the obsession of the various characters fascinating, the scientific obsession of the original patriach that eventually descended into madness, Colonel Buendia making little gold fishes, the incestuous natures of the whole family, some ethereal nympho character that doesn't speak a word and then one day transcend to haven much to the horror of the venerable matriarch. What is your interpretation of the book?

timfrietas 13y ago
Generally science and industry are negative factors for Macondo. Throughout the book Macondo grows to be a darker place after a brief initial boost from scientific method; however science when paired with capitalism can be dangerous (unhealthy obsessions with alchemy and banana republics come to mind as examples). Capitalism + science = weapons of mass destruction and war. It isn't necessarily white guilt but capitalist and technological guilt. Of course, as in any Marquez, there's a great deal about how powerful love is, transcending cultural narratives and causing its own problems.
huherto 13y ago
I cannot do a literary critique. But I can tell you that when I was 17, I started reading "One hundred years of solicitude" and couldn't stop until I finished the whole book. I felt enchanted, it is a feeling that I never had either before or after. I read it in Spanish, (my native tongue) so your mileage may vary.
- ryanpardieck 13y ago
  I think sometimes it is OK to be simply enchanted. (Well I think it's always OK, but ...) I tend to favor literary "analysis" that dwells on that feeling of enchantment, tries to explain it to an extent, and sometimes even re-create that feeling. I'm not sure an overarching "meaning" is always really needed. For several years I followed the mailing lists dedicated to several of my favorite authors, and at the same time took literature classes at university. Both were great, but I'll always consider those mailing lists my "real" education in literature. University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors (which isn't exactly a bad thing--these are smart, interesting people).
  - ynasser 13y ago
    Which mailing lists did you follow?
  - noname123 13y ago
    > University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors. Not to be pedantic, but what specific value did you find in academic literary critique? My personal experience in University wasn't very positive. I found most books/papers to be derivative or more of a documentation of humanities people's self-referential knowledge (e.g., explaining all of the literary (Grego-Roman, Biblical and Celtic) allusions and historical context in "Ulysses"; and therefore, all of these allusions fit in this grand theory of {Hegelian Dialectic, Post-modernity}). IMO, it kind of defeats the purpose of literature if one has to be so well versed in the Western cannon or whatever cannon to appreciate a narrative which ultimately conveys a human experience. A humanities grad student once explained to me that in literary analysis, the creativity is "in the interpretation as opposed to the creation for the author." I don't understand why in a subjective experience as literature, why an academic's word is then more valuable than mine or a monkey's. But I'm curious why you have a different perspective as for why professors in humanities have good perspective on literature.
    - 13y ago

timfrietas 13y ago

Generally science and industry are negative factors for Macondo. Throughout the book Macondo grows to be a darker place after a brief initial boost from scientific method; however science when paired with capitalism can be dangerous (unhealthy obsessions with alchemy and banana republics come to mind as examples). Capitalism + science = weapons of mass destruction and war. It isn't necessarily white guilt but capitalist and technological guilt. Of course, as in any Marquez, there's a great deal about how powerful love is, transcending cultural narratives and causing its own problems.

huherto 13y ago

I cannot do a literary critique. But I can tell you that when I was 17, I started reading "One hundred years of solicitude" and couldn't stop until I finished the whole book. I felt enchanted, it is a feeling that I never had either before or after. I read it in Spanish, (my native tongue) so your mileage may vary.

ryanpardieck 13y ago
I think sometimes it is OK to be simply enchanted. (Well I think it's always OK, but ...) I tend to favor literary "analysis" that dwells on that feeling of enchantment, tries to explain it to an extent, and sometimes even re-create that feeling. I'm not sure an overarching "meaning" is always really needed. For several years I followed the mailing lists dedicated to several of my favorite authors, and at the same time took literature classes at university. Both were great, but I'll always consider those mailing lists my "real" education in literature. University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors (which isn't exactly a bad thing--these are smart, interesting people).
- ynasser 13y ago
  Which mailing lists did you follow?
- noname123 13y ago
  > University was mostly good for learning to write a certain kind of essay, and how to read in ways that are valued by tenured professors. Not to be pedantic, but what specific value did you find in academic literary critique? My personal experience in University wasn't very positive. I found most books/papers to be derivative or more of a documentation of humanities people's self-referential knowledge (e.g., explaining all of the literary (Grego-Roman, Biblical and Celtic) allusions and historical context in "Ulysses"; and therefore, all of these allusions fit in this grand theory of {Hegelian Dialectic, Post-modernity}). IMO, it kind of defeats the purpose of literature if one has to be so well versed in the Western cannon or whatever cannon to appreciate a narrative which ultimately conveys a human experience. A humanities grad student once explained to me that in literary analysis, the creativity is "in the interpretation as opposed to the creation for the author." I don't understand why in a subjective experience as literature, why an academic's word is then more valuable than mine or a monkey's. But I'm curious why you have a different perspective as for why professors in humanities have good perspective on literature.
  - 13y ago