The first short story, "A Man With Enormous Wings," describes the perception human vanity has of "pretty" things. This is demonstrated with an angel in the story. First, when I think of an angel, I typically think of something very beautiful, pure, white, with gorgeous wings and feelings of compassion, like most other people. However, the angel portrayed in this short story isn't your "typical angel". The angel is describes as "his bald skull and very few teeth in his mouth...his huge buzzard wings, dirty and half-plucked, were forever entangled in the mud." As you can see, the angel is quite ugly, and not the everyday typical perception of an angel. However, the townspeople, after realizing that the angel wasn't beautiful, couldn't speak Latin, and didn't come with blessings, were determined that he wasn't an angel sent from heaven. The importance of the appearance of the angel and the denial of the angel's presence allows Márquez's criticism to come into play. Márquez feels that you can't put a price on beauty. It's wrong that human vanity will only accept "pretty" things and that people will lock themselves into their perceptions with no room for acceptance. It's actually life itself that is the true miracle. Yes, it's safe to say that sometime the conception of the divine is hard! You have to be open to the divine and accept it in all of its shapes, sizes, and forms.
When connecting this story to myself personally, the first thing that comes to mind is what all of us are taught at such a young age: don't talk to strangers. Okay, that's true and fair, but think of our perception of a stranger: a man who looks nasty or homeless, no teeth maybe, a beard, and definitely scary looking. Is this true that all men who have a beard and look homeless are actually strangers who are going to kidnap you? No, not at all. Some men who look homeless and/or nasty are actually really nice guys, or maybe even geniuses. I mean look at Albert Einstein, he's not the most attractive or groomed man but he was super intelligent. I feel that this story allowed me to change many of my already conceived perceptions of certain things. But, in all honestly, are they really nasty looking or is that just what we have locked our heads into perceiving them as?
In the second short story, "The Most Handsomest Drown Man in the World," Márquez demonstrates the same theme of our perception of certain things but in the opposite way. Instead of someone being ugly, someone is actually very beautiful, or handsome. A dead man floats ashore from the sea into a village. The women of the village view this man and become obsessed with him. They feel he is the tallest, strongest, and best built man they have ever seen. The irony of the story is the perception of this man by the women of the village. The fact that their conception of beauty in a man is that of one that is dead. This seems bizarre to me, and it should to you too. The underlying message that Márquez's has created for his readers is this story is that people limit themselves in perception. The women are so fixed on this dead man only because of his physical looks. This shows that humans are limited to the norms and ideals and are blinded by the reality. The reality is, well, the man is dead!
When thinking to myself about the second story, I think of one man's ugly is another man's beauty. Just because you perceive something as ugly doesn't mean that someone thinks it's ugly too. We tend to believe it's wrong for that person to think something you feel is so ugly is beautiful, when in fact that's what I would call perfection. That's the spice of life and what makes the world go around. For example, I own a pug and I'm am seriously obsessed with him and think he is the cutest thing ever. To others, a pug is an ugly dog that only snores and breathes loud.
In a final note, I feel that Márquez's theme of our perception brings up the idea that I love and that is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." My history teacher in high school had a bumper sticker in his room that said this and every time I saw it I had to read it over and over again and think in order for me to finally understand it's meaning. This quote describes our basic notion on the view of those in the Middle East fighting against our troops. We think that they are ALL terrorists, which is obviously without a doubt false. However, those in the Middle East think that the American troops fighting against them are in fact terrorists. So, we as Americans feel our troops are the freedom fighters and the militias in the Middle East are terrorists. The militias in the Middle East feel that American's are the terrorists and that they are the freedom fighters helping maintain their idea of normalcy within their country. So, who is right?
I like how you refer to "us intellectual people". That's funny. However, look out for sentences like, "Márquez's underlying theme is portrayed in an exemplifying way." I'm not really sure what this sentence means, and I like to think I could be included in your intellectual people group. I like how you bring your dog into the mix: that is a good example of your point. The bumper sticker is another good example, but a bit more pointed. I don't know if we can find out who is right, but I do think we can find understanding.
ReplyDelete