Register Now


Lost Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Register Now

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.Morbi adipiscing gravdio, sit amet suscipit risus ultrices eu.Fusce viverra neque at purus laoreet consequa.Vivamus vulputate posuere nisl quis consequat.

100 years of solitude – I don‘t prefer it as a lot. You?

I learn quite a bit. Just about the whole lot. At the moment I learn the aforementioned work of GGM in English and obtained half via it.

I purchased it as many individuals advisable it saying large issues of the way it charmed them or modified their life. I don’t see it:

– I discover it arduous to learn as a dozen characters have related names. It’s annoying too.
– I miss robust messages as Orwell might ship
– and if it’s not for a robust message it reads much less intriguing as „Hawaii“ from Michener which „solely“ laid out the historical past of that island
– I learn crime and punishment and preferred it so it’s not essentially the lengthy and detailed writing

I really feel a bit dumb for not getting it. I questioned for those who really feel the identical and for those who can clarify why?

Comments ( 7 )

  1. First of all, I loved it but I totally understand where you are coming from. It is a repetitive, and to me subtle, message that he weaves in throughout these generations teaching Latin American history. It is also purposefully difficult due to the names because they represent how people never really change. I love Marquez and if you would like to appreciate his prose I suggest *Love in the Time of Cholera*, which I found easier to approach and just as beautiful.

  2. Maybe you don’t like magical realism? I don’t like it either. Marquez has some early work that isn’t in this genre, and I like that a lot. But like other post modern literature, it seems self indulgent in that it sets out to challenge readers, who maybe are just looking for good story telling? I understand an author wanting to transcend strictures of traditional narrative: but why should readers want to read it? I, like most readers, simply enjoy a strong narrative, even if that makes me pedestrian. Once I graduated college, and could read what I like, I avoid magical realism (and I still resent having to plow through this novel on a deadline in school).

  3. I suppose it’s fine to not get it. But I’m interested. What do you mean with “strong message”? I honestly think that One Hundred Years or Solitude is a very poignant representation/critique of Latin American, particularly Colombian culture and politics. The idea of a civilization that is damned to repetition hits hard. And the depiction of violence is very eye-opening in regards to Colombian history.

  4. There are very, very few books I’ve liked as much as One Hundred Years of Solitude.

  5. Sometimes certain books just don’t speak to us. I felt the same way about One Hundred Years of Solitude but absolutely loved Love in the Time of Cholera, which was one of my favorites that I’ve read in a long time.

  6. I loved it. The first paragraph is legendary and it hooks you in. Finshing the novel is very fulfulling.

  7. Share the same sentiment. I couldn’t get the exact message of the author. However, what stood out about the book is the prose, narratives, and description.

Leave a reply