The Chronicle of a Death Foretold

The title “The Chronicle of a Death Foretold” can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. A chronicle is defined as a series of events; clearly this does not connect with the concept of death seeing as a death would end the chronicle. Also the concept of foretelling switches around chronology; this does not work with a chronicle because a chronicle is chronological. One way to interpret this title is to see it as the chronicle of how a death is being foretold, or a story about how someone’s death is predicted. Another way to view it is as a chronicle of the past events about a person who has already died. The final way to see it is as a chronicle of how a death happened which was already foretold. Because this title is so abstract it reflects that the story itself also will be interpreted in a number of ways by the characters in the novel.

Chronicles of a death foretold

at first glance the title of the novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez almost makes sense. Its the story of death that occurred that was foretold. But on deeper analysis, when one starts to break down each words meaning, the title begins to contradict itself. this is done through the word choice. first of all the word chronicle entail a story that had already happened was a series of events, while the foretelling is meaning that it was already seen in the future. the most significant word in the contradiction of the title, however, is Death. Death in the context is singular, meaning in could not of had a chronicle. the title would almost make more sense with a different word ordering, such as the the chronicles of the foretelling of a death (less catchy, but gets the point across clearly). conclusively, the title of the novel suggests that the "death" has yet to occur...

how Chronical of a death fortold is illogical

The title of Gabriel Garcia's novel seems to be illogical. A chronicle is detailed narrative record or report of ordered events, and to foretell is to tell of or indicate beforehand, or to predict. A chronicle is an ordered set of events leading up to a result, to foretell of what a chronicle leads up to skips the order in which the chronicle goes. knowing the result before it actually happens interferes with the order.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

The "flaw" in this title is obvious at a first glance. The two words "chronicle" and "foretold" do not make sense in this context. This is why i am suspicious of any flaw in the first place. If indeed there is a flaw in the title , it was intentionally placed there by the author. Maybe the book is the chronicle of the foretelling of the death instead of a recount of the death itself . In this case the title would not be flawed at all. The title does not really clue the reader into whether this death has taken place or not but if this book is a chronicle of the foretelling of the death then it is probably safe to assume that the person has not died yet.

Chronicle of a death foretold

The title chronicle of a death foretold doesnt make any sense because its to opposite ideas in the same sentence making it an oxymoron. chronicle means in a specific order so for example days it goes " monday, tuesday wednesday..etc" . while the word foretold is the prediction of future events that are going to happen. and death meaning end so translated the title doesn't work because its the order of a end that already happened. this is a contradictory of itself because you cant have a foretelling of a chronicle. none of the words in the title agree with each other.

A Turn of Phrase

The problem with the title of this book is that it is an oxymoron. A chronicle is a series that come in a specific order (such as 1, 2, 3, 4...) and can not be altered and still make sense (2,78,6,100...). By saying the death is fore told, it is skipping ahead, taking information, and then bringing it back to an earlier point and continuing on (for example going to 1, 2, 77 [being the death in this example], 3, 4, 5...). It is an oxymoron because it breaks the idea of staying in chronological order. Another flaw within this title is that death is one single moment in time, and there isn't any way you can chronologically record a single moment, because its only one one moment where a chronicle is multiple moments in a certain order.

"Chronicle of a Death Foretold"- Estrella

The word 'chronicle' means a description of past events.  The word 'foretold' is the prediction or the known outcome of something.  With 'chronicle' you have the past, but with 'foretold' you have the future.  The two words do not agree with each other in the title. By the title incorporating 'death', as in a death has already occurred, you can not have a fortelling. You can have a chronicle though based off the events leading to or already happened to cause the death. You also can have a foretelling of a death, but not a 'chronicle of a death foretold.'  The two words, 'chronicle and foretold' do not agree with each other when the word 'death'  is the word in between.  I do agree though, that in order to have a future; "a foretelling", you need  a past; "a chronicle."

Chronicle Of A Death Foretold

The problem with the title The Chronicle Of A Death Foretold is that the novel doesn't actually follow any chronological sequence. The reason Gabriel Garcia Marquez chose this title is because it is an account of a murder. When a traumatic incident occurs, each witness to that event sees the occurrence in different ways. This means that there is no eye witness story that is identical to the next. By naming this story a "chronicle", Marquez is telling the sequences in the order that they occurred to the witness.

Logic in CoDF

The flaw with the logic of the title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" is that it creates a sort of contradiction of tenses. While "chronicle" implys a list of events in the past, foretold implys that the death has not yet happened. However, the story follows with the title, regardless of logical error. The reason for this is that the author places the events in the story as they are happening in the present. Thus, although the story did in fact happen 27 years earlier, the death in the novel's time line, has yet to happen.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

Marquez allows for multiple interpretations of his title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold." If one isolates the first few pages of this novel, hence assuming the perception that Marquez's novel is a chronicle of a fated death, then the title contradicts itself in that the first page begins at the end. A chronicle must document events in precise chronological order, a rule that Marquez ignores in the first sentence of his novel. Before even opening the cover, however, the title appears inherently amiss. The first word, 'chronicle', defies the final 'foretold'. If the reader is to know that an event is fated, they must know this from the start of a novel, before the commencing the plot that will explain the event. Because a chronicle is restricted to time's logical progression, a book is not a chronicle if it begins with the ultimate conclusion of a tale.

Logical flaw in CODF -Toby

The word "chronicle," by definition, suggests to the reader that the story is an account of a series of events that has already happened. Despite this, the word "foretold" is also included in the title. By definition, the use of this word suggests to the reader that the events in the novel had yet to be written when they were written about in the novel. This creates contradiction. From the perspective of a chronological flow of time, the title in logically flawed. Something cannot be foretold if it has already happened. This contradiction in the title, in turn, suggests to the reader that the story will be an anachronism.

Now, what intent would Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author, have through creating this contradiction in the title of the novel? Marquez creates antithesis in the title to portray the scope of the ideas and events in the novel.

-Toby

Chronicle Of A Death Foretold

Garcia Marquez's, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, centers around a murder investigation that takes place 27 years subsequent to the death of Santiago Nasar. The title disregards logic in the juxtaposition of "chronicle" and "foretold". Chronicle implies that events will be presented in the order in which they occured whereas foretold implies that these events will be revealed prior to their occurrence within the story. However, since this is a Latin American Boom author the title makes perfect sense as Boom authors avoid following an established form and aim to evoke a feeling of great confusion in the reader.

RE: Chronicle of a Death Foretold

A chronicle is a telling of events or a story in a chronological order. Chronological means in order of time. In the first few pages of the novel it is discovered that a man has returned to a town where a murder had happened 27 years in the past. This word is already in defiance of itself by starting 27 years after the matter as apposed to from the beginning. It seems as though it would be best to start at the end rather than the start, though confusing, this backwards method can help to unravel mysteries hidden to a chronological eye. Marquez did this to imbue the mysterious attributes of the story into the title and confuse the reader as much as the protagonist.

Colombians are just tricky

Gabriel Garcia Marquez manages to arrange the title Chronicle of a Death Foretold to interest the reader. I believe Marquez does this to argue the way the future works. The future only appears if a series of events occurs in a certain amount of time, which is known as a Chronicle. Foretelling is already predicting the future, so the title Chronicle of a Death Foretold defies the principles of how the words chronicle and foretold work. Marquez, due to his knowledge of the importance of a title of a novel, keeps interest in the reader until the end of the novel. Marquez's title is not wrong; he's just doing his job. That is why I think Marquez chose these particular words in the title.

Response: "What is wrong with the title 'Chronicle of a Death Foretold'?"

At first glance, the title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" seems to be contradictory, as the word chronicle generally refers to a chronological account of an event which already happened, while 'foretold' seems to suggest that the event hasn't happened yet as the word refers to the predicting of the future. However, the title could easily be interpreted as meaning a chronicle of how a death was foretold or, alternately, a chronicle of a death which had been foretold. If this is to be the case, the confusion presented through the title is merely a result of lack of clarification, as either possibility named above is logically sound on its own. However, in the context of the book itself there is still an issue with either interpretation, as the events within the book are not presented in chronological order. 'Chronicle' can sometimes be used less formally to simply mean a detailed record of events, though, so the issue is a minor one.

Despite the fact that the contradictions present in the title can be cleared up by simply using a different interpretation, there is still the issue of why such an easily misinterpreted and confusing title was chosen in the first place. Most likely, this was used to generate interest in the book, as the contradictory title catches one's eye and makes one curious about what the title could possibly mean and what the book could be about. In addition, the title is quite in line with the apparent nature of literature from the Latin American Boom, as the deconstruction of traditional narratives, which often involves messing with chronological order, is a common theme.

Marquez's title Chronicle of a Death Foretold defies logic because chronological means that the story would be told in the order that time passes, and foretold means that an event is indicated in the story before it happens. These two concepts contradict each other because something can not be told before it happens and remain chronological. If Marquez would have hinted that Santiago Nazar was going to be killed, and had not started the book with "on the day they were going to kill him" (Marquez 3), the book would no longer be foretold. Since Marquez consistently adds in comments from people that were made after the death of Santiago Nazar, before he was dead, the novella can not be a chronicle.

I think that Marquez chose to title her novella as she did for several reasons. The title catches ones attention because it does not make sense. Then, as you begin to read it, you see that because the story is being told after the events have taken place, maybe the title could make sense on some obscure way even though logically it contradicts itself.

Contradictory words in the title.

The title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" defies logic because a chronicle is a record of past events. That means the death should have already occurred. Because it's foretold, meaning it is being foreshadowed, that indicates the death hasn't occurred yet, making the title contradictory to itself. Also, the title is logically flawed with respects to the book itself because the book is not in chronological order, making it not a chronicle.

The arrangement of words is significant because it is reveals the book to be controversial. Marquez chose this particular arrangement to emphasize ambiguity and contradiction of the book.

Title of "Chronicle of a Death Foretold"

The title of the book “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” is logically flawed due to the contradictory words in the title. ‘Chronicle’ is defined as: “To record in, or in the form of, a chronicle, a chronological record of events” (chronological being “in order of time of occurrence”). Foretold or to foretell is defined as: “to tell of or indicate beforehand; prophecy; predict”. Assuming one interpretation of this title, a ‘chronicle’ of events may happen in the present, but the events must have happened in the past in order for chronologically ordered occurrences to be told. However a foretelling of events is expressed merely as occurrences that have not happened yet, so therefore perspectives of what those occurrences could be. Henceforth the two words counteract each other, expressing the telling of a both past and future death. Additionally, the title is flawed because the book is not told in the “order of time of occurrence”, so therefore does not fit the definition of chronicle. In my point of view, I believe the title to be interpreted as the chronicle of a death that happened in the past, and of the predictions of the death prior to the actual murder. The man who is murdered in “Chronicle of a Death Foretold” is named Santiago Nasar. The narrator of the book describes several characters that believe or know of Santiago Nasar’s death, so this description is the ‘foretelling’ of Santiago’s murder. However, the narrator also describes two characters in particular, who both had a gift of predicting future circumstances, but both failed to see this particular occurrence of death coming. This fact again flaws the title, because it seems Gabriel Garcia Marquez is implying there in fact was an inability to foretell of the death of Santiago.

"Chronicle of a Death Foretold"

Gabriel Garcia Marquez titles his book "Chronicle of a Death Foretold." The wording of this title leaves the reader guessing, as it cab be interpreted as (chronicle of a death) (foretold) or (chronicle of) (a death foretold).

If an event is foretold, it is predicted or known that the event will occur before the event actually happens.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "chronicle" as "an extended account in prose or verse of historical events...presented in chronological order and without authorial interpretation or comment."
So, if one interprets the title as a (chronicle of a death) (foretold), the title contains no flaw in logic within itsself (Assuming, of course, that it is possible for events to be foretold). The title simply means that the book is a chronicle of a death, and that someone foretold that the book would be written before Marquez wrote it.
If one interprets the title as a (chronicle of) (a death foretold), the title itsself is still logically sound. It means that Marquez has written a chronicle about a death which was foretold.

However, the title is logically flawed in relation to the book because Marquez does not write in chronological order (Perhaps because the death which he writes about is already known, and/or because he writes the book prior to the event's occurrence).
It is also ironic (and perhaps a smidgen logically flawed, if one is cynical) that the book is so popular if one relies on it's title as an indication to what the story contains. Why would one wish to read a story in which the assumed "main event" is already revealed to them in the title? I believe it is because it adds an element of intrigue, which is why Marquez chose it.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold

The arrangement of the words is key if one was to determine what the plot of the book is. If to take the words literally,I could assume the story is of a chronicle that has been written of somebody's death and how it was known, before the death occurred, that it would take place. My assumed plot thus brings a questionable story that would defy logic. First, No one knows when they are going to die, and therefore the future knowledge of a death is bizarre and could possibly be known from a fortune teller, or from a doctor if the main character was ill. Secondly, a death is a single moment and can not be put into a chronicle unless it took many steps to carry, leading me to believe Marquez writes of a murder. A known murder that the main character was never told of by the holder or holders of this information.

This book is no chronicle!

The title of Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a misnomer, if the dictionary definition of the word "chronicle" is considered. A chronicle is defined as "an historical account of events arranged in order of time usually without analysis or interpretation". Marquez's novel is not a chronicle in the conventional sense, primarily because the witness accounts of the time surrounding Santiago Nasar's murder are not in chronological order. The witness accounts are reflections of events that happened decades ago, and are told in a way that dates and times of these witness's stories are bound to overlap. The details of the accounts, especially those regarding time, are also bound to be muddled or forgotten by memory, so the novel can not be a linear chronicle. Also, Chronicle of a Death Foretold cannot be a traditional chronicle because (I'm assuming) it revolves around the narrator's interpretation and analyses of the many disorganized witness accounts in order to put the case of Santiago Nasar's murder to rest decades after it happened. A chronicle just states the facts, without interpretation.

I think Marquez used the title because the narrator is attempting organize the scattered details reported to him by the witnesses into more of a timeline, or a chronicle, so that the murder case is easier to solve. The chronicle is his first step to solving the case, then analyses and interpretation come into play.

Irony behind the title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold"

The title of the book "Chronicle of a Death Foretold", by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, is full of ironic ideas. What's ironic about this title is that, it's almost as if Marquez wrote this book to predict a death. He is writing how and why this death will happen in this story. Another ironic thing about this title is that the death that will happen has already been foretold. If the book based itself in the present, the title would better off be "Chronicle of Foretelling a Death". Since this death has already been foretold Marquez is only writing a story about this foretold death.

I think that the reason why Marquez gave this book such an ironic title was so that it would match the irony of the story that will eventually unfold.

Annie's Idea

Chronicle of a Death Foretold sounds like a continuation of something that has already ended in the past. It was predicted, and is currently a death and cannot be continued (necessarily...). If I were to make sense of it I'd guess it was a prolonged death as opposed to an instant event, for one single event cannot contain chronology. It could also be going back in time before this death and accounting for the events that led up to it.

The Ironic Title "Chronicle of a Death Foretold"

The title, "The Chronicle of a Death Foretold," is ironic because of Marquez's word choice. A chronicle is defined as a sequential record of events and to foretell is the act of predicting the future. The two words contradict one another because records of history cannot exist before the events that create that history occur. This title can also be seen as the unfolding of a prophecy. The death foretold being the prophecy and the chronicle being how the events unfolded. I see both possibilities in this title, but also I interpret chronicle to be multiple events, not just one. This is another contradictory aspect of the title. A death happens in a single moment, therefore a chronicle of a death is not possible in the sense that it is not a string of events.

-Elliot

New Question: What is wrong with the title Chronicle of a Death Foretold?

How does this title defy logic? Why do you think Marquez chose this particular arrangement of words?

Due: 1/10-11