Penn State University Press
  • A Problem of Precipitation:Finding Gatsby in Chronicle of a Death Foretold

In a 1981 essay in the New York Times, Gabriel García Márquez discusses his artistic patrimony, acknowledging his debt to two "great masters," William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway, that pair of "North American novelists who [seem] to have the least in common." To Faulkner, García Márquez attributes a nebulous impact on his "soul," but from Hemingway, he claims to have learned matters of "craftsmanship," the technical machinery in the "science of writing" ("Gabriel"). The timing of this essay makes it all the more curious that García Márquez should omit any mention of the similar debt that he owes to F. Scott Fitzgerald, and to his The Great Gatsby in particular. García Márquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold was published in 1981, the same year as his New York Times essay, and this short novel reads in many ways as a protracted reworking of and response to Gatsby. The books appear to be so closely counterpointed as to suggest that García Márquez has not two, but three masters from the front ranks of American modernists.

García Márquez's Chronicle is, like Gatsby, the story of a murder, a crime that follows from a thwarted romance and hinges on a case of mistaken identity. In Chronicle, Santiago Nasar—a companionable dandy with a doting mother, a respectable fiancée, and a hereditary compulsion to molest the eligible servant in his home—is murdered for allegedly deflowering Angela Vicario, a girl whose family has fallen on hard times and whose marriage to the fabulously wealthy Bayardo San Román is nullified owing to her compromised maidenhead. Although Nasar's guilt is never established indisputably, Angela Vicario's brothers, Pablo and Pedro (butchers by trade, and twins, to boot), slaughter Nasar outside the door of his own home on the morning following the wedding celebration—despite the fact that they announce their criminal intent publicly as if imploring someone to stop them. In this sense, Nasar's death is thoroughly [End Page 116] foretold, known even to the victim himself, and yet the crime is consummated despite the best intentions of all concerned.

Already, it is easy to detect some broad traces of Gatsby in the plot of Chronicle: Jay Gatsby's idealized but nonetheless illicit romance with Daisy Buchanan likewise ends in his murder. Following the hit-and-run homicide (apparently inadvertent) of Tom Buchanan's mistress, Myrtle Wilson, her husband, George, tracks the perpetrator—the wrong man, as it happens—to his home, kills him, and commits suicide. However, these traces only scratch the surface of the correspondences between the texts. Like Gatsby, Chronicle is narrated from a first-person perspective by someone not directly participating in the unfolding tragedy. In both books we have not the confession of a protagonist, but the account of a witness, and a doubtful one at that. Nick Carraway, Daisy's cousin and occasional facilitator of the lovers' plot, recounts the events of the tragic summer of 1922, albeit dubiously.1 The narrator of Chronicle is never named, though the novel hints at his identification with the author himself, owing to the autobiographical resonance of the names of the narrator's family members (as one example, both the narrator and the author are married to a woman named Mercedes). Compared to Nick, who receives considerable stage time in Gatsby, the narrator of Chronicle remains a shadowy figure throughout. Though he was a close friend of Nasar and had spent part of the night before the murder carousing with the victim, he is absent during the actual commission of the crime, having chosen to pass the early morning hours in the company of Maria Alejandrina Cervantes, the proprietress of the local brothel. As a result, this narrator, to an unsettling degree, relies on the testimony of others to piece together the events culminating in the murder, a journalistic quest that occupies him intermittently for twenty-seven years.

The narrator of Chronicle shares something else in common with Nick Carraway—a proclivity for manipulating the narrational flow of time. Nasar's murder is the singular event at the center of the novel, yet it spans very little time, requiring only a matinal hour and a half to be completed. Even so, the narrator takes extravagant liberties with the chronology. After setting in motion the timeline pertaining to the murder in chapter 1, he frequently backtracks—as one example, to recount, in chapter 2, San Román's mysterious arrival in the town six months earlier and his courtship of Angela Vicario—and flashes forward, hurdling decades to relate the circumstances under which he interviewed witnesses of and participants in the crime. He also summarizes preemptively, in the fashion of an epilogue, the fates of those affected by the murder; in perhaps the most jarring example, readers learn in chapter 4 that [End Page 117] Bayardo and Angela eventually reunite, seventeen years after Nasar's execution, a fact that underscores the pointlessness of the crime they have precipitated. Only in the novel's final chapter does the narrator describe the murder scene itself; the death is not only foretold, but withheld until the book's last pages. By contrast, Nick's distortion of time—his repeated excursions into the past to relate Gatsby's biography, his use of the eternalized present tense to describe Gatsby's parties, and the subtler recurrence of the past in the novel's symmetrical structure (its echoing scenes and settings)—yields a chronological surface that is comparatively compact and orderly. (Time clearly is a vexed issue in Gatsby, and I will consider it more closely later in this essay.)

These broad comparisons begin to suggest how closely the two works correspond; however, the intertextual relations grow increasingly interesting when we concentrate on smaller details, local affinities, and echoes. To begin with beginnings, García Márquez famously opens his novel with an unequivocal record of the facts: "On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on" (Chronicle 1).2 In this sentence, Nasar's murder is announced no less implacably than it is in the novel's title. Similarly, Nick Carraway neutralizes some of the suspense of his narrative by telling us, prematurely, his conclusions with regard to the events of that 1922 summer: "No—Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men." The revelation that Nick expects never to find again someone with Gatsby's gift of "romantic readiness" partly discloses, in advance, the fact of his death (Gatsby 2). On this point, García Márquez's novel would seem to exaggerate, or exacerbate, a relatively minor feature of Fitzgerald's narration, and this tactic, of strategic exacerbation, typifies the relationship between Chronicle and Gatsby.

Gatsby Agonistes

García Márquez comes closest to an explicit reference to Gatsby in the portrait of Bayardo San Román. Like Jay Gatsby, San Román is a fantastical and mysterious figure: an incalculably wealthy man with a dubious past, embarked on a romantic quest for love. To account for his presence in the town, he tells someone, "I've been going from town to town looking for someone to marry"—a quip that elicits the narrator's remark that "he had a way of speaking that served [End Page 118] to conceal rather than to reveal" (28). This trait evokes Gatsby's own habit of speaking evasively; in one comical instance, Gatsby cites "San Francisco" as the "part of the Middle West" from which he hails (65). Likewise, Gatsby adopts the absurd "old sport" as a signature phrase, perhaps in an attempt to authenticate his specious Oxford pedigree. In addition, like Gatsby, San Román purchases a mansion, the home of the widower Xius, to impress his beloved and throws a lavish party in her honor. But while Gatsby turns his mansion into a Trimalchian roadhouse, hoping that Daisy might "wander into one of his [many] parties," per Jordan Baker's report (79), San Román stages only one spectacular party—to celebrate the nuptials—at the house of his bride.

These character portraits converge most closely in the descriptions of the men's respective pasts, and this correspondence offers perhaps the most convincing evidence that the link between the books is something more than coincidence. On the road to New York, Gatsby offers Nick a summary of his hackneyed résumé: "I lived like a young rajah in all the capitals of Europe—Paris, Venice, Rome—collecting jewels, chiefly rubies, hunting big game, painting a little, things for myself only, and trying to forget something very sad that had happened to me long ago" (65-66). Nick listens skeptically until Gatsby produces a photograph to verify his status as an Oxford man, at which point Nick reflects, disproportionately, "Then it was all true. I saw the skins of tigers flaming in his palace on the Grand Canal; I saw him opening a chest of rubies to ease, with their crimson-lighted depths, the gnawings of his broken heart" (67). This sketch of Gatsby's biography bears a striking similarity to the sensational rumors surrounding Bayardo San Román: "It came to be said that he had wiped out villages and sown terror in Casanare as troop commander, that he had escaped from Devil's Island, that he'd been seen in Pernambuco trying to make a living with a pair of trained bears, and that he'd salvaged the remains of a Spanish galleon loaded with gold in the Windward Passage" (Chronicle 36). The fantastical account of their exploits binds the two characters together; both men have grossly inflated reputations, enlarged in each case by literary clichés. Fittingly then, both novels adopt a similar means to dispel some of these ludicrous rumors: San Román "put an end to all those conjectures by a simple recourse: he produced his entire family" (Chronicle 36). In Gatsby, most pointedly for our purposes, Henry Gatz likewise arrives for his son's funeral, verifying Jay Gatsby's humble Dakotan roots in the process. San Román's family is not as comically deflating as Gatsby's; he proves to be the son of a famous and feared military man, which explains his wealth. Differences notwithstanding, García Márquez appears to have taken Gatsby for a model in the portrait of Bayardo San Román. [End Page 119]

One confounding consideration here—something that would potentially nullify the relationship between the two texts—is that the Gatsby influence on Chronicle might well be secondhand, traceable through García Márquez's affinity for Faulkner rather than deriving directly from Fitzgerald. Further, this problem begs a second, underlying question: why should the particulars in Chronicle be attributable to influence at all? On the second point, García Márquez himself offers a firm answer in his interviews and journalistic writings; beyond his remarks in the New York Times, García Márquez is unequivocal on the subject of influence, which, for him, is something salutary to be cultivated, not shunned. As early as 1950, he wrote, "A novel unmistakably and fortunately influenced by Joyce, Faulkner or Virginia Woolf has yet to be written in Colombia." He continued, "I say 'fortunately' because I don't think that Colombians can, at this time, be exceptions to the game of influence" (qtd. in Cohn 60). And indeed, numerous studies have traced the imprint of Faulkner in García Márquez's work; the borrowings are often "unmistakably" exact. John S. Christie has noted how Chronicle draws on both Faulkner's Light in August (1932; primarily) and Absalom, Absalom! (1936; secondarily). From the former, García Márquez acquired much of his plot and theme—the martyrdom of Santiago Nasar and the power of the word to warp reality. From the latter, he acquired something of his narrational method: in Faulkner's work "events are never verifiable since they are only filtered down through various narrators," and likewise, "García Márquez is equally concerned with denying narrative authority" (Christie 22-23). However, Christie's sketch of these intertextual relations does not quite convey the exactitude of the borrowings, particularly with regard to the latter novel.

Anyone who chances to read Chronicle alongside Faulkner's Light in August will be struck, even astounded, by the affinities that emerge between the works (call it a sublime experience of déjà vu). Consider the opening lines of Faulkner's chapter 19, in which the fugitive Joe Christmas is cornered and executed:

About the suppertables on that Monday night, what the town wondered was not so much how Christmas escaped but why when free, he had taken refuge in the place which he did, where he must have known he would be certainly run to earth, and why when that occurred he neither surrendered nor resisted. It was as though he had set out and made his plans to passively commit suicide.

There were many reasons, opinions, as to why he had fled to Hightower's house at the last.

(August 419) [End Page 120]

This passage would be perfectly at home in Chronicle as it evokes, broadly, the collective speculations of García Marquéz's citizens and anticipates, more precisely, the residential anxieties of Cristo Bedoya, who "never managed to explain to himself why he gave in to the impulse to spend two hours at his grandparents' house until the bishop came instead of going to rest at his parents', who had been waiting for him since dawn to warn him" (Chronicle 113). Similarly, the narrator of Chronicle speculates that Nasar's death, like Christmas's, "could have been suicide" (118). While the influence of Light in August is especially pronounced, global, and pervasive in Chronicle, the borrowings from Absalom, Absalom! are perhaps equally striking for their precision and resonance. From Absalom, García Márquez appears to inherit his book's preoccupation with codes of honor, the notional abstractions that necessitate Nasar's murder and which might have been inspired by these passages in Faulkner's work: "I watched the miragy antics of men and women . . . called honor, principle, marriage, love, bereavement, death" and "if you haven't got honor and pride, then nothing matters" (Absalom 131, 279). And perhaps the complacent comment on Nasar's death, "Honor is love" (Chronicle 114), can also be read as a rejoinder to Quentin Compson's appraisal of the love triangle involving Charles Bon and the Sutpen siblings—"it's not love" (Absalom 258). Given that García Márquez makes no secret of his debt to Faulkner, his portrait of Bayardo San Román might well derive from Faulkner's cast of Thomas Sutpen, another character with "no discernible past" who also settles in a new town with the intention of marrying (Absalom 7).

This genealogical line of descent becomes increasingly likely when we consider that Faulkner's Absalom has itself been argued to descend from Fitzgerald's Gatsby. In 1975, F. A. Rodewald was among the first to identify the Gatsby DNA in Faulkner's patriarch, Thomas Sutpen, and to articulate the case for an influence, a kinship, that has subsequently attracted other scholars, including Walter Benn Michaels and John D. Rockefeller V. Rodewald accurately notes the characters' common traits—their mysterious origins, their contempt for time and reality, their colossal dreams, their catastrophic innocence, and their absurdly pretentious speech—but he makes perhaps too little of the manner in which Sutpen's biography emerges belatedly and incrementally (in conversations with Quentin's grandfather), exactly as Nick disburses Gatsby's life story. The account includes this description of the young, impecunious Sutpen, who resembles the penniless Jay Gatsby: "[H]e was at this time completely the slave of his secret and furious impatience, his conviction gained from whatever that recent experience had been—that fever mental or [End Page 121] physical—of a need for haste, of time fleeing beneath him, which was to drive him for the next five years" (Absalom 25). And Rodewald also neglects to cite this passage in Absalom, which appears to be culled from the world of Gatsby: "Beautiful lives—women [lead]. In very breathing they draw meat and drink from some beautiful attenuation of unreality in which the shades and shapes of facts . . . move with the substanceless decorum of lawn party charades, perfect in gesture" (171). Given the Gatsby imprint in Faulkner's novel, it is possible that here, predictably in Yoknapatawpha, we have located the antecedent for García Márquez's text. The wild rumors surrounding San Román's origins might reflect an inspired retread of the citizens' speculations about Sutpen, "ranging from the ones who believed that the plantation was just a blind to his actual dark avocation, through the ones who believed that he had found some way to juggle the cotton market itself and so get more per bale for his cotton than honest men could, to the ones who believed apparently that the wild niggers which he had brought there had the power to actually conjure more cotton per acre from the soil" (Absalom 56-57). In this case, García Márquez's reconfiguration of Faulkner's book would lead him by the back door to something like the character portrait of Jay Gatsby.

Such a reading is, admittedly, possible—and all of this, without impugning the beauty and, yes, originality of García Márquez's work. Whether the Colombian is drawing on Faulkner or Fitzgerald or both, as I would argue, this is not to say that his fiction is derivative in a pejorative sense. Indeed, even the most casual reading of Chronicle will reveal the work's distinctive genius (the pistol-shot force of its dialogue, the telescoping of time, the carnival of identity, its murmuring narration of enormities, by turns lyrical and grotesque). Where influence manifests in the text, it tends to do so sporadically, at times with eerie precision, only to be rapidly subsumed within the sweep of García Márquez's vision (the modernists do not eclipse the work, but haunt it). Nevertheless, the closeness of the counterpointing between Gatsby and San Román, the identically sudden and conclusive arrival of the men's family members (which never happens in Sutpen's case): these details strongly suggest the impress of Fitzgerald alongside, at the least, the homage to Faulkner. Consider the first description of San Román's character in Chronicle: "He was around thirty years old, but they were well-concealed, because he had the waist of a novice bullfighter, golden eyes, and a skin slowly roasted by saltpeter. He arrived wearing a short jacket and very tight trousers, both of natural calfskin, and kid gloves of the same color" (27). The character's ambiguous age and the tonality of his wardrobe's description both evoke West Egg's most prominent citizen more [End Page 122] clearly than the overlord of Sutpen's Hundred. And while Angela Vicario might paint San Román as a "devil" (Chronicle 30), echoing Rosa Coldfield's view of Sutpen as a "demon" (Absalom 135), García Márquez's character is equal parts "fairy" (Chronicle 27), suggesting he resides at least in part in the same aesthetic plane as Fitzgerald's Daisy Fay Buchanan.

Given that García Márquez appears to have Gatsby on his mind at least as much as Sutpen, we have cause to push the relation between Chronicle and Gatsby even further, where we find that the specter of Gatsby inheres not just in his clearest counterpart, the paramour San Román. In fact, García Márquez appears to have fractured the Gatsby persona and to have distributed important facets of that persona among three of his novel's characters. Those qualities that link Gatsby to Sutpen—as eternal innocent and martyr (Sutpen dies too, at the hands and scythe of his underling Wash Jones)—now resonate with the portrait of Santiago Nasar. Both Gatsby and Nasar are murdered at home: one privately in his pool, the other—Nasar—impaled against his front door before a sizeable crowd. And neither man, it bears repeating, is guilty of the crime for which he is killed. Of course, one might insist that Nasar's gruesome death echoes the mutilation of Joe Christmas's body in Light in August, as Christie does (22). However, what argues perhaps most urgently for the influence of Gatsby is that both deaths are infected by an air of irreality.

In Gatsby, Nick veers into surrealism when he imagines the murder scene: after speculating that Gatsby's dream might have burst, that he might no longer care if Daisy calls him in the wake of Myrtle's death, Nick writes,

If that was true he must have felt that he had lost the old warm world, paid a high price for living too long with a single dream. He must have looked up at an unfamiliar sky through frightening leaves and shivered as he found what a grotesque thing a rose is and how raw the sunlight was upon the scarcely created grass. A new world, material without being real, where poor ghosts, breathing dreams like air, drifted fortuitously about . . . like that ashen, fantastic figure gliding toward him through the amorphous trees.

(Gatsby 161; emphasis added)

Ironically, the moment at which Gatsby's illusions have been punctured by reality is precisely the moment at which the world seems least real to him, by Nick's account. In Chronicle, no such insight is attributed to Nasar; the narrator merely summarizes his conclusion: "My personal impression is that he died without understanding his death" (Chronicle 118). Nevertheless, as the murder unfolds, [End Page 123] the action grows increasingly fantastic or surreal: the twins, for example, claim that their pig-killing knives repeatedly come out "clean" from Nasar's body, and the victim himself does not fall immediately, but survives the attack long enough to circumnavigate his house, passing through a neighbor's home, while bearing his entrails in his hands (139). These events are strange enough; however, the access of the surreal is even more direct in the vision of Divina Flor, the servant in Nasar's house and victim of his seignorial advances. She claims to have seen Nasar, alive and well, passing into the house moments before the murder, while carrying in his hands a bouquet of flowers (137-38). Flor's vision appears to be a distorted account of the more gruesome events then transpiring, the flowers substituting brutally for Nasar's intestines. In any case, both works, at this crucial juncture, feature a glimpse of a ghost, one the murderer, the other the victim.

Finally, shades of Gatsby also inhere in the portrait of Angela Vicario in Chronicle. Like Gastby, Angela reveals an obdurate devotion to her one-time husband, a fidelity immune to the passage of time; however, this devotion does not emerge until after San Román has rejected and returned her, like defective merchandise, to her family's home in the middle of the night. Over the next seventeen years, Angela writes weekly letters to him, reflecting a constancy that ultimately proves persuasive. Faulkner's Rosa Coldfield is also a possible precursor of Angela Vicario and her extraordinary constancy: Coldfield even trumps Vicario on this point as she nurtures her rancor against the Sutpen clan for forty-three years. However, in his staging of the reunion between Vicario and San Román, García Márquez again appears to evoke Fitzgerald's novel, not Faulkner's. As San Román, now balding and fat, surfaces on Vicario's doorstep, with a suitcase, the couple's reunion is pointedly anticlimactic: Angela "knew he was seeing her just as diminished as she saw him, and she didn't think he had as much love inside as she to bear up under it" (Chronicle 110-11). In Gatsby, Nick describes a similar disillusionment in the Gatsby-Daisy reunion sequence in these terms: "There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams—not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion" (95).

The parallel between the two scenes appears to be self-evident, but once we establish the link between García Márquez and Fitzgerald (with or without an admixture of Faulkner), the comparison might lead us to see Gatsby's purported devotion with fresh eyes. Angela remains unwaveringly faithful to Bayardo for seventeen years; compare this with the "[a]lmost five years!" that separate Gatsby from Daisy (95). By Nick's account, Gatsby's devotion to Daisy verges on the preternatural: "[His illusion] had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, [End Page 124] decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart" (95-96). The hyperbolic language suggests that Gatsby has constructed an image of Daisy that transcends time, that his passion spans an eternity rather than the comparatively slight five years that have passed. So perhaps here, as elsewhere, we see evidence of Nick mythologizing Gatsby, distorting and enlarging his character, rather than giving readers a clear-eyed account of his tale.

Images and the Imaginary

In addition to the parallels among the cast of characters, Gatsby and Chronicle also hold in common several conspicuous motifs, and, perhaps not surprisingly, given the intervening influence of Faulkner, they explore nearly identical thematic terrain. Gatsby shares an interest in those two modernist cynosures, time and reality—the twin poles of an existential crisis—which surface regularly in the book's images and motifs. Water imagery is especially pervasive in Gatsby—from the sweat on the lip of Nick's Midwestern girlfriend (58), to the mentions of Gatsby's hydroplane (47, 53, 64, 92), to the sweat that stains Nick's train ticket in chapter 7 (115), to the heavy rains that drench chapters 5 and 9, to the aqueous site of the murder and the ubiquitous presence of Long Island Sound. In every case, water appears to be implicitly associated with the press of the real—the wet marker of reality asserting itself and dispelling the competing illusions of the characters. It is the image of sweat that conveys Nick's distaste for his former girlfriend, proving her inimical to the illusions of love. And when the rain falls over the scene of Gatsby's and Daisy's reunion, its arrival perfectly coincides with the process of disenchantment—the reality check—there begun: Nick speculates about Gatsby's emotional state during the scene, commenting, "Possibly it had occurred to him that the colossal significance of that [green] light had now vanished forever. . . . Now it was again a green light on a dock. His count of enchanted objects had diminished by one" (93). By the same symbolic logic, it seems fitting that the highest compliment that Daisy can pay Gatsby, her declaration of love, is that he "always look[s] so cool" (119), immune to the perspiration that attaches to the ambitions of lesser mortals, and Gatsby, even in death and burial, floats above (or is insulated against) the element that nevertheless claims him as a victim.

Water is likewise a central motif in García Márquez's Chronicle, although it functions in a way precisely opposite to its function in Gatsby: it appears to mark the assertion of irreality. The image surfaces immediately in the book's [End Page 125] first paragraphs, as Santiago Nasar awakes from a dream of a gentle rain, feeling as if he has been spattered in "bird shit" (Chronicle 1). Here, the drenching in the dream world leaves a palpable impression on Nasar's reality, collapsing the distinction between the two domains. In fact, this dream shower appears to fall more generally over the novel, as the narrator and his sources are unable to determine unequivocally if it was raining or not on the morning of the murder; characters routinely offer conflicting weather reports, with some claiming that the day was sublimely clear and others contending that it was raining steadily if unobtrusively (2). In this instance, the water imagery signals an elemental ambivalence in the novel, an inability to reconcile competing versions of reality: the term itself appears to be fluid, in flux.

This motif recurs throughout the book, acquiring further nuance and underscoring its resonance: as the bishop, a visiting dignitary, passes by on a steamboat and administers an inattentive blessing to the town, there are reports that a blast from the whistle drenches the crowds on the shore (Chronicle 18-19). Like Nasar's dream and the dubious rain, this whistle supplies what we can call an imaginary soaking. And later, during the murder itself, the Vicario brothers are ultimately "soaked" in Nasar's blood (139), but even more strikingly, the narrator claims that the entire town suffers from another kind of drenching, this one synesthetic, olfactory: "Everything continued smelling of Santiago Nasar that day" (90). Straining the bounds of logic, this affliction disrupts the narrator's mourning tryst with Maria Alejandrina Cervantes; it oppresses the Vicario twins after their arrest; and it leads Poncho Lanao, Nasar's neighbor, to remark conclusively, "What I'll never forget was the terrible smell of shit," a gruesome reference to the stench from Nasar's exposed intestines (142). Together, these imaginary soakings seem to suggest the town's collective sense of guilt for its failure to prevent the crime—"a death for which we all could have been to blame," the narrator remarks (94). In this chain of associations, the text points teasingly to a connection between the precipitation of the clouds and the precipitation of a murder—points, too, to the conclusion that Gatsby has precipitated the novel's imagistic vocabulary.

The water imagery in Chronicle is, at the same time, expertly interwoven with another of the book's prominent motifs: flowers. Two of the female characters, including Nasar's fiancée, Flora Miguel, are named for flowers, and here, yet another connection to Gatsby surfaces: while cataloguing the West Egg partygoers, Nick mentions the women whose "last names were . . . the melodious names of flowers," and of course, both Daisy and Myrtle have floral names (63). In Chronicle, the flower imagery is even more assiduously linked to femininity, [End Page 126] evoking particularly the female hymen and the chauvinistic concept of "deflowering." The feminine connotation of the image emerges most directly in the description of Angela Vicario's primary talent, one that marks her as a woman "reared to get married" (Chronicle 34): the manufacture of "artificial flowers" (30), a basket of which she is carrying at the moment San Román first sees her. However, these literal cloth flowers point distressingly toward another kind of floral fabrication. Prior to her wedding, Angela is directed by her confidantes to simulate her virginity by devising what is essentially another "artificial flower"—staining her wedding bed, post-coitus, with mercurochrome (42).

Although (or perhaps because) Angela never goes through with this plan, this passage reveals the strategic interweaving of the water and flower imagery: the artificial flower in this instance coincides with the phenomena of imaginary soaking that abound in the novel, and the coincidence compels us to see that the notion of virginity is itself an imaginary construct. Not only can virginity be simulated—a tampering with reality—but like the dream-rain or the whistle blast or the smell of carnage, it is itself, from the outset, ab ovo, a product of human fancy, a chimera available to the credulous. (Consider that San Román eventually turns a blind eye to Angela's premarital indiscretion.) And yet, as the book shows us, this social convention and invention nevertheless exerts a palpable force, shaping human destinies, ultimately spelling disaster for the novel's main players. Like Nasar, Bayardo San Román and Angela Vicario are both characterized as victims in the drama, Bayardo explicitly (99), Angela implicitly (her mother attempts to "bury her alive" in punitive exile [101]). In essence, the novel vividly dramatizes how imaginary codes can tragically supersede the autonomy, and distort the reality, of the human beings who create them. The judge who presides over the Vicario twins' trial offers the most succinct iteration of this theme: in the margins of the case file, he scrawls obliquely (speaking equally for the book's narrator), "Give me a prejudice and I will move the world" and "Fatality makes us invisible" (117, 133). For all of the novel's contradictions and conundrums, the point resonates with piercing clarity: the social constructs—the prejudices, essentially—of virginity and honor, of guilt and innocence, blanket Nasar in a cloud of fatal predestination that makes his death impossible to forestall.

Again, on all of these points—the erosion of reality, the special concerns with virginity, foreknowledge and fatalism—García Márquez's text suggests a Faulknerian provenance; however, I would submit that the closeness of the contrasts between Chronicle and Gatsby, particularly with regard to water imagery, suggests an equally close kinship with Fitzgerald. And on this most pressing [End Page 127] matter of the texts' thematic concerns, we see again the value in establishing the connection, as the later work affords us a new perspective on the earlier. Like Chronicle, Gatsby is, of course, equally and explicitly concerned with "the unreality of reality" (Gatsby 99). Gatsby is a cipher, of sorts, a hollow man, a glamorous façade, and his capacity for illusion and invention represents for Nick a larger capacity to dream—a "capacity for wonder" (180)—that is common to all humanity. Like Gatsby, Myrtle Wilson, Tom Buchanan, George Wilson, and Nick Carraway all suffer from delusions or grapple with the terms of reality in their own ways: Myrtle believing Tom will marry her; Tom pursuing "stale ideas" (20), downwardly mobile sexual liaisons and the "dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game" (6); George acting on the mistaken assumption that Gatsby is responsible for Myrtle's death; and Nick romanticizing and distorting his experience of Gatsby and the East. However, while Fitzgerald shows us characters constructing individual illusions, all of which are charted on a collision course, García Márquez would appear to modify the vision of Gatsby, suggesting that the social contract—a shared and general delusion—likewise undermines the putative reality of individual lives.

"The Mysteries of Its Personal Clockwork"

In Gatsby, the notion of reality crucially depends on the perception of time, which also figures as a prominent motif in the novel. The novel's resonant last line—"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" (180)—underscores its interest in not just reality, but temporality, suggesting that the rejection of time is one of those mechanisms by which the "rock of the world" (99) is rendered insubstantial. Perhaps the most conspicuous manifestation of this motif in the book occurs in chapter 5, when the problem of time intrudes upon Gatsby's and Daisy's reunion scene. Trying to look at ease in Nick's living room, Gatsby leans his head against "a defunct mantelpiece clock," which he nearly dislodges from its perch (he catches it before it topples) (86). This image, I find, is among the most brittle in the novel, an emblem both of Gatsby's quest to halt and reverse time—his epic battle against temporality—and of one of the novel's aesthetic flaws, an occasional symbolic heavy-handedness.

Thomas A. Pendleton views time itself as a crucial problem, and an even more thoroughgoing flaw, in The Great Gatsby. In I'm Sorry about the Clock (1993), he tracks the startling number of temporal anomalies in the novel's chronology and concludes that Fitzgerald is an inattentive artist, his book's reputation [End Page 128] seriously inflated. Pendleton is not the first critic to challenge the novel's artistic cohesion. Tom Burnam, in a classic essay on Gatsby, alleges that the novel contains an "inherent confusion of themes, [a] duality of symbol-structure of which Fitzgerald seems to have been unaware." Burnam continues, "The book, great as it is, still falls short of its possibilities because its energies are spent in two directions. If The Great Gatsby revealed to us only its protagonist, it would be incomparable. Revealing, as it does, perhaps a little too much of the person who created it, it becomes somewhat less sharp, less pointed, more diffused in its effect" (10). For Burnam, it is Fitzgerald's simple faith in money that sabotages his rendering of the novel's ostensible theme: the pursuit of the past, the contest with time.

Burnam is right insofar as Gatsby does appear to contain a thematic confusion, a pattern of internal contradiction that requires an accounting. However, this confusion, I submit, emerges not in the blurring of art and biography, as Burnam suggests, but specifically with regard to Nick's portrait of Gatsby and the latter's grasp of reality. Nick repeatedly attributes to Gatsby contradictory insights regarding the nature of reality. In chapter 6, when Nick recounts the self-inventive reveries of the young James Gatz, he writes, "A universe of ineffable gaudiness spun itself out in his brain while the clock ticked on the washstand and the moon soaked with wet light his tangled clothes upon the floor. . . . For a while these reveries provided an outlet for his imagination; they were a satisfactory hint of the unreality of reality, a promise that the rock of the world was founded securely on a fairy's wing" (Gatsby 99). Call this Gatsby's early glimpse of the novel's fundamental insight: the fictive nature of reality. Yet, later, Nick describes a Gatsby unhinged by the very same insight, an insight that must already have resulted in the fabulation of the Gatsby persona: when Daisy tours the mansion for the first time, Nick reads, in Gatsby's "dazed" expression, evidence that the world no longer seems real to him (91). It is as if Gatsby discovers the "unreality of reality" for a second time. And in the imagined sketch of Gatsby's death, Nick again attributes this subversive insight to Gatsby: that "new world, material without being real," that causes Gatsby to shiver on the air mattress appears to be the same world that Gatsby has already inhabited, ever since he began construction of the Gatsby persona in his quest for Daisy (161).

Similar contradictions surface elsewhere. When Nick initially relates Gatsby's past, he prefaces the account with the claim that Gatsby "remained faithful to the end" to his "Platonic conception of himself " (98). Yet Nick suggests that Gatsby, in his pool, might have experienced an epiphany and abandoned that Platonic ideal, a construct bound to his perception of Daisy: "perhaps he no longer cared," after the accident, if she would call (161). And what are we to [End Page 129] make of Nick's depiction of a desolated Gatsby on the train leaving Louisville, who knows "that he had lost that part of [the romance], the freshest and the best, forever" (153)? This knowledge would significantly undercut the zeal of Gatsby's belief that four years could be obliterated with one sentence, and that time can be wrangled and the past recaptured by sheer force of will (109, 110).

Although startling, these contradictions pose little threat to the novel's aesthetic unity and thematic coherence. After all, we must acknowledge that, to a significant degree, its artistry results from the close patterning in the portraits of Nick and Gatsby, who share a virtually identical predicament. Nick's crises—both the restlessness that drives him east (3) and the disenchantment that sends him back to the Midwest—remain variants of the conflicts he attributes to Gatsby; each character is condemned to chase the past, and doomed, in some sense, by a glimpse of something (nearly) "commensurate to his capacity for wonder" (180): for Gatsby, Daisy; for Nick, Gatsby. Pendleton helps clarify the complementary relationship between the characters. He describes how Nick has the linguistic resources to articulate, in prose, the philosophical underpinnings of Gatsby's grand gestures, his largely wordless theatricality (Pendleton 94-95). Nick is the talk to Gatsby's action, essentially.3 If the interweaving of these conflicts is essential to the novel's artifice, the pattern also readily accommodates Nick's fallibility as a narrator. His tendency to contradict himself, wittingly or unwittingly, identifies him all the more closely with his protagonist, whose history is blatantly compromised by illogical details (Pendleton notes, for example, the incongruous date attached to Gatsby's copy of Hopalong Cassidy [11]), and whose entire persona is a threadbare deception.

Pendleton bridles particularly at one choice example of Nick's fallibility: when Nick tells of Gatsby's gloomy return from "France" in chapter 8 (152), he appears to have forgotten that Gatsby should have been returning from England after his doubtful stint at Oxford. Pendleton characterizes this discrepancy as, "at the most charitable, imprecise" (112). It would be possible to dispute, point by point, Pendleton's tabulation of "errors" in the text;4 however, David Seed, in his review of Pendleton's book, begins to diagnose the global problem in Pendleton's efforts to rectify the novel's chronology. He writes that Gatsby offers "a whole range of notions of time to consider: as a cycle; as loss pure and simple; as a composite seasonal image superscribed on the chronology; and as repetition." Thus, "[t]he novel's attention to time is so rich and complex that a reader would be very unlikely to scrutinize the details" as Pendleton does (Seed 117). (To my mind, correcting the clock-time in Gatsby is a little like prescribing glasses for Monet.) Even so, as Seed acknowledges, Pendleton [End Page 130] does argue convincingly that Fitzgerald's revisions to his manuscript tend to smudge and blur the chronology, thus inviting the reader's skepticism. As we have seen, however, such breaches in verisimilitude are not limited to the matter of timekeeping. Near the novel's end, another incongruity surfaces in the present action of chapter 8, when Nick speaks to Gatsby for the last time. He refers to Gatsby's mansion as "his ancestral home," apparently without irony (or with an irony submerged almost undetectably in the context), as if at last he has wholly subscribed to the Gatsby illusion (154).

Taken together, if these details are errors or oversights, as Pendleton argues, then it seems that the sublime machinery of Gatsby's design—its "personal clockwork," to use García Márquez's phrase ("Gabriel")—is especially propitious: it renders Fitzgerald's errors as strategic and skillful as his intentions. In the end, Nick builds for us what is in some measure an "incoherent failure of a house" (Gatsby 179), a truly Gatsby-like edifice: like the mythologizing that surrounds and defines Gatsby, Nick's account does not quite add up—the very bedrock of truth that his narrative would supply is subject to erosion. Arnold Weinstein has argued (superbly) that Gatsby thematizes the "creation of belief, the making of something from nothing, the sovereign power of language and imagination over against the paltriness of evidence" (28); thus, the novel's conflicts, for Weinstein, point to the "paradigmatic formula for literature itself " (26). The textual contradictions also contribute to this thematic agenda: they implicate readers in the epistemological conflicts that grip the characters, subtly disclosing the fictive quality of the tale, visiting upon us the novel's concern with ontological erosion. As these contradictions dispel the very belief that the text still compels, exposing the reader's own capacity for illusion, they aggravate the very conditions that make possible literary reading. Consequently, on this matter, no less than with the title character, the novel appears to end in ambivalence: literature itself scans as both a triumph over and travesty of the real.

There will likely remain a vigorous debate on the subject of Nick's and Fitzgerald's fallibility; however, García Márquez's novel, with an assist from Faulkner, could help settle the matter. Unlike Nick, the narrator of Chronicle is much more straightforwardly befuddled. When summarizing the effects of the murder on the town, he writes,

For years we couldn't talk about anything else. Our daily conduct, dominated then by so many linear habits, had suddenly begun to spin around a common anxiety. The cocks of dawn would catch us trying to give order to the chain of many chance events that had made absurdity possible, and [End Page 131] it was obvious that we weren't doing it from an urge to clear up mysteries but because none of us could go on living without an exact knowledge of the place and the mission assigned to us by fate. Many never got to know.

(Chronicle 113)

Openly confessing the limits of his knowledge, this narrator is reliably unreliable, his tale admittedly incomplete. Excepting, perhaps, the disputed rainfall (a significant exception), Chronicle does not manifest quite the same pattern of internal contradiction that emerges in Gatsby. The narrator does disclose some contradictory information with regard to Nasar; although the narrator is convinced of Nasar's innocence, he acknowledges Nasar's habit of "nipping the bud of any wayward virgin" who crossed his path beyond the town proper (104), and he likewise acknowledges Nasar's designs on his cook's daughter (14)—both incriminating details. However, in García Márquez's text, the factual veracity of the tale is steadily undermined through a pattern of rapid reversals and negations of narrative details. In one example, the Vicario twins are initially described as incapable of murder because they are too drunk and sporting "one-day beard[s]" that "gave them a backwoods look" (62), to boot. Readers believe these to be reliable details of the crime until, shortly after, the twins are reported to have shaved (73) and to be incapable of murder because they "weren't as drunk" as they appeared (65). The facts of the tale are continually subject to immediate revision and subversion.

It might be Faulkner who best confirms Fitzgerald's tendency to disrupt the facticity of his narrative. As Christie notes, the culminating installment of the Sutpen saga is narrated by Shreve, Quentin's roommate at Harvard, someone who "could never really have known the true events to begin with" (23); further, it is Shreve who points out, playfully, a fault in Quentin's own storytelling. When Quentin claims that Thomas Sutpen hails from West Virginia, Shreve corrects him, explaining that Sutpen cannot be said to have been born in West Virginia because the state had not yet been admitted into the Union (Absalom 179). Elsewhere, Faulkner's text spells out, eloquently, this narrative dilemma, describing the collaborative storytelling of Quentin and Shreve as if supplying a fit summation of Fitzgerald's narrational method:

some happy marriage of speaking and hearing wherein each before the demand, the requirement, forgave condoned and forgot the faulting of the other—faultings both in the creating of this shade whom they discussed (rather, existed in) and in the hearing and sifting and discarding the false [End Page 132] and conserving what seemed true, or fit the preconceived—in order to overpass to love, where there might be paradox and inconsistency but nothing fault or false.

(Absalom 253)

Yet, maybe predictably, Isabel Rodríguez-Vergara summarizes the methods of Chronicle in terms that are equally pertinent: "Chronicle does not conform to the timing of events but cheats with them, showing them as superimposed planes from different temporal perspectives with different combinations of characters on each plane." She concludes, "The novel nullifies the reader's illusion of seeking 'facts.' Rather, Chronicle encourages the reader to focus his attention on the creative process of fiction." If the intertextual relations between these three novels are plausible in other respects, it seems reasonable to conclude that the works might align on this point as well, that Chronicle, like Absalom, would here make explicit something latent in Gatsby: that each of these works depicts a thoroughly artful crisis of narratorial reliability.

In the pantheon of literary modernism, Fitzgerald is in some ways an anomalous figure. His Gatsby—too sentimental in its depiction of love, too bourgeois in its fascination with gilded society, too eager to please with its touches of vaudeville comedy (Owl Eyes's car wreck [53-55], the Manhattan puppy vendor [27-28])—sits uneasily alongside the other masterworks of the era. Fitzgerald himself claimed to suffer from "a two cylinder inferiority complex" (qtd. in Bruccoli 23), and in this denigrative light, his omission from the list of García Márquez's influences can seem like a slight of sorts, evidence of a prejudice that might also be hereditary. (Rodewald notes that Faulkner, too, kept quiet about his estimation of Fitzgerald [97].) In an interview with the Paris Review, García Márquez does acknowledge his debt to all of "the writers of the American Lost Generation" (Stone), so perhaps this admission justifies the inclusion of Fitzgerald in his artistic ancestry. However, searching for documentable proof on this question of influence—some undiscovered notes from Faulkner or a comment from García Márquez in his autumn years—might itself be contrary to the spirit of the works themselves, with their phantasmogoric facts and equivocal visions. Perhaps the better measure of Fitzgerald's achievement in his slender, readable, and unashamedly moving Gatsby is simply that we can detect so many of its traces in the works of his universally venerated successors. And although he was himself plagued by doubts, Fitzgerald knew something of what he had wrought, knew that his book "contains such prose as has never been written in America before" (Life in Letters 112). Weinstein suggests that Nick Carraway's voice contains the same haunting attributes that Nick finds [End Page 133] in Daisy's: a voice "bringing out a meaning in each word that it had never had before and would never have again" (qtd. in Weinstein 27). To this we might add that, like Daisy's voice, perhaps the novel's prose, too, has a quality that can't "be over-dreamed" (Gatsby 96), and contains something nearly commensurate to the human capacity for wonder—or such at least would seem to be the lesson in the fevered (re)creations of Absalom, Absalom! and Chronicle of a Death Foretold.

Bruce Stone

Bruce Stone teaches writing at UCLA. He was the contributing editor of The Art of Desire: The Fiction of Douglas Glover (2004), and his fiction, essays, and reviews have appeared in Numéro Cinq, Miranda, Nabokov Studies, and Salon.

Notes

1. Nick Carraway's status as an unreliable narrator is not a settled issue among Fitzgerald scholars and critics. For Cartwright, Nick is not "an arbiter of final meanings," but "a contestant in the novel's internal tugging war for truth" (229). Similarly, Coleman observes, "the ambivalence of Nick's narrative is matched by the precariousness of his narratorial authority" (209). And for Ernest Lockridge, Gatsby reveals the "systematic use of an untrustworthy (or unreliable) narrator," which, far from impugning Fitzgerald's talents, rather confirms that he "is an artist worthy of complete trust" (163). On the other hand, Thomas A. Pendleton subscribes to the alternate point of view: that Nick Carraway must be a reliable narrator if the novel is not to devolve into "nonsense" (103). I will have more to say about Pendleton's position later in this essay.

2. The sentence in the original Spanish text reveals how literally the book has been translated: "El día en que lo iban a matar, Santiago Nasar se levantó a las 5.30 de la mañana para esperar el buque en que llegaba el obispo" (Crónica 9). The syntax and phrasing, including the reference to the unnamed murderers, have been replicated exactly in the English. In every case, the passages cited in this paper have been translated with the same fidelity.

3. Pendleton views the characters as foils, rather than as alter-egos—or some blend of the two alternatives—as I am proposing. He contends, "For Nick, more than anything else, is realism set against Gatsby's romanticism" (95). In either case, the relationship between the characters is crucial to the novel's artistic integrity and thematic unity.

4. To offer one example, Pendleton notes a problem with Nick's claim to have not been "back from the War" at the time of Daisy's wedding, which he locates, as most readers do, in June of 1919. Pendleton argues that this assertion flatly contradicts Nick's other claim to "have visited the Buchanans 'just after the war'" (qtd. in Pendleton 112). Likewise, Pendleton is convinced, as was Bruccoli, that Fitzgerald has erred with regard to the age of Daisy's daughter: Daisy claims that Pammy is three years old in the summer of 1922, but, as Bruccoli explains, this would require her to have been born on a date implausibly close to the date of her wedding (qtd. in Pendleton 114). However, one might speculate that the dating of Daisy's wedding is itself not a reliable fact in the narrative.

Pendleton insists on the reliability of Jordan's account of Daisy's courtship experiences (111), though he seems untroubled by Nick's ability to reconstruct, apparently verbatim, her testimony from his remote vantage point back in the Midwest. It remains possible that Jordan, the novel's confirmed liar, has padded the length of Daisy's mourning period to make it more seemly and to intensify the quality of her devotion to Gatsby. Perhaps Daisy marries Tom in June of 1918, and the novel's revelation that the Dear John "letter [End Page 134] reached Gatsby" (Gatsby 151) at Oxford (presumably in 1919) is itself another invention and deception: perhaps Daisy, like Nick with his entanglement "back home" (58), continues to correspond misleadingly with Gatsby, long after she has moved on romantically. In this case, Nick would not have been back from the war in time for the wedding; he might have visited the Buchanans just after the war, and Pammy Buchanan could be three years old in the summer of 1922. However, such conundrums in the novel might not admit of any final resolution; in this case (in any case), they serve, rather, to thematize the factitiousness of fact, the fictive nature of reality.

Works cited

Bruccoli, Matthew J. Some Sort of Epic Grandeur: The Life of F. Scott Fitzgerald. 2nd rev. ed. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 2002. Print.
Burnam, Tom. "The Eyes of Dr. Eckleburg: A Re-examination of The Great Gatsby." College English 14.1 (1952): 7-12. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Cartwright, Kent. "Nick Carraway as an Unreliable Narrator." Papers on Language and Literature 20.2 (1984): 218-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Christie, John S. "Fathers and Virgins: García Márquez's Faulknerian Chronicle of a Death Foretold." Latin American Literary Review 21.41 (1993): 21-29. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Cohn, Deborah. "'The Paralysis of the Instant': The Stagna[t]ion of History and the Stylistic Suspension of Time in Gabriel García Márquez's 'La hojarasca.'" College Literature 26.2 (1999): 59-78. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Coleman, Dan. "'A World Complete in Itself': Gatsby's Elegiac Narration." Journal of Narrative Technique 27.2 (1997): 207-33. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Faulkner, William. Absalom, Absalom! 1936. New York: Vintage, 1986. Print.
———. Light in August. New York: Quinn & Boden, 1932. Print.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. F. Scott Fitzgerald: A Life in Letters. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli, with the assistance of Judith S. Baughman. New York: Scribner's, 1994. Print.
———. The Great Gatsby. 1925. New York: Scribner's, 2004. Print.
García Márquez, Gabriel. Chronicle of a Death Foretold. 1981. New York: Ballantine, 1982. Print.
———. Crónica de una Muerte Anunciada. Bogotá: Editorial La Oveja Negra, 1981. Print.
———. "Gabriel García Márquez Meets Ernest Hemingway." New York Times 26 July 1981. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Lockridge, Ernest. "Fitzgerald's Trompe l'Oeil and The Great Gatsby's Buried Plot." Journal of Narrative Technique 17.2 (1987): 163-83. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Michaels, Walter Benn. "Absalom, Absalom!: The Difference Between White Men and White Men." Faulkner in the Twenty-First Century: Faulkner and Yoknapatawpha, 2000. Ed. Robert W. Hamblin and Ann J. Abadie. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2003. 137-53. Print.
Pendleton, Thomas A. I'm Sorry about the Clock: Chronology, Composition, and Narrative Technique in The Great Gatsby. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna UP, 1993. Print.
Rockefeller, John D., V. "'Beyond My Eyes' Power of Correction': Fitzgerald, Faulkner and the Past." Diss. Johns Hopkins U, 2008. ProQuest. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. [End Page 135]
Rodewald, F. A. "Faulkner's Possible Use of The Great Gatsby." Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual 7 (1975): 97-101. Print.
Rodríguez-Vergara, Isabel. "Chronicle of a Death Foretold: Violence as Genre." Interamer 34 (2004). Portal Educativo de los Américas. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Seed, David. Rev. of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, ed. Jeffrey Meyers; I'm Sorry about the Clock: Chronology, Composition, and Narrative Technique in The Great Gatsby by Thomas A. Pendleton; F. Scott Fitzgerald by Andrew Hook. Review of English Studies 47.185 (1996): 115-17. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Stone, Peter H. "The Art of Fiction No. 69." Interview with Gabriel García Márquez. Paris Review 82 (1981). Web. 24 Mar. 2013.
Weinstein, Arnold. "Fiction as Greatness: The Case of Gatsby." Novel 19.1 (1985): 22-38. JSTOR. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. [End Page 136]

Share