Reginald White

April 28, 2014

Dr. Leah Creque
World Literature (Honors)

1. Restate thesis and support of the Nobel Laureates lecture.

For this particular Nobel Lecture, a single thesis statement is not easily detectable, nor
would one be applicable to the whole lecture. Therefore, the theses statements, at least as I see
them, are as follows:
Our independence from Spain did not put us beyond the reach of madness.
Latin America neither wants, nor has any reason, to be a pawn without a will of its own;
nor is it merely wishful thinking that its quest for independence and originality should become a
Western aspiration.
Throughout the lecture, Marquez support his theses with more than sufficient evidence as
well as his own experiences. For example, right after he states that Latin American independence
did not equate to peace, he gives examples of multiple tyrannical dictators and military leaders
and their ridiculous tactics. More specifically, he states that General Antonio Lopez de Santana
(whom Americans might know as the Mexican general in the war of the Alamo) was dictator of
Mexico three times over, and he also had what was described by Marquez as a magnificent
funeral for the right leg he had lost in the so called Pastry War. Likewise, in defense of his next
major point, Marquez laments how Europe and the other superpowers insist on judging Latin
America by European standards. However, Marquez goes on to remind us that Rome was not
exactly built in a day, and nor was the rest of the world that has developed.

2. Define re-occurring terms in lectures.
While there is no concept that I cannot readily reconcile with my own knowledge, I do
notice that Marquez makes some very interesting allusions, to say the least. Granted that I am no
expert of Latin American history, these allusions are beyond my scope of understanding. I hope
that I can find out what he is referring to. In his Nobel Lecture, he drops no names, nor does he
give time periods in which the heinous events (a diabolic dictator who is carrying out, in Gods
name, the first Latin American ethnocide of our time.) actually happen. Another example of
such an allusion would be the promethean president whom Marquez claims was entrenched in
his burning palace; dying alone. To fully understand the lecture as well as lend credibility to it
requires a thorough knowledge of the history he is referring to.
As it stands, I am not able to find any direct reference to a president who dies from
wounds made by his own men, or a dictator who is bent on murdering his own people. I did find,
however, that General Maximiliano Hernndez Martnez, the dictator of El Salvador, did have
thirty thousand peasants killed. Marquez references this person in an earlier paragraph, and I
could not be sure if this was the man he was referring to.

3. Paraphrase major points and concepts of the Nobel Laureates lecture. Discuss the
major points and concepts of the lecture in your own words.
As evidenced by the two theses, Marquez tends to be very politically outspoken about
political corruption in Latin America, as well as the world over. His expose of Latin American
leaders is one of the more poignant issues of the lecture, while his criticism of Europe and the
developed world also resonates with the leftist politics that Marquez subscribes to. In depth
analysis of the lecture reveals a disdain for conservative politics and corrupt politicians, as well
as an undying hope for change in Latin America.
In the third paragraph of his lecture, Marquez laments the fact that there have been so
many corrupt leaders in Latin American history. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna held a
funeral for the leg he lost in a war. General Gabriel Moreno ruled Ecuador as an absolute
monarch for sixteen years, and when he died, his body lay in state in the presidential chair, fully
dressed and with a protective layer of medals. I have already discussed the El Salvadorian
leader General Maximiliano Hernndez Martnez who ordered executed thirty thousand people,
but in addition to that mass killing, he also draped the street lamps in scarlet to defeat an
epidemic of scarlet fever. Additionally, in the subsequent paragraphs, he critiques Europe for
forgetting its past. Also, he laments the fact that while he is readily granted the chance to be
original in his literature, that ability is truncated when it comes to finding solutions for social
change. Both of these points serve to paint Marquez as a true champion for social justice.
However, some of his points can be misconstrued into an inferiority complex of sorts. I will
expound on that later.
4. Summarize the Laureates beliefs and theories reflected in the lecture. Write a short
summary that discusses the Laureates beliefs, values, or theories as revealed in the
lecture.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez is clearly a leftist when it comes to politics, and he, like many of
his contemporaries, write their literature against the corrupt power structures of Latin America.
However, according to Amy Sickels, Marquez actually rejects social protest literature,
believing that it is a barrier to creativity and freedom. Regardless, his works reflect his political
outspokenness, and his Lecture provides even more concrete evidence.
The title of the lecture is The Solitude of Latin America, a clever play on words from
the title of his magnum opus, One Hundred Years of Solitude. The solitude Garcia describes is
a worldwide one. After gaining independence from Spain, Latin America sees no difference in its
corrupt politics and morally questionable leaders. As a result of the seeming unbelievable stories
of cruelty as well as the impact of the fairy tales Marquez heard as a child, he masterfully blurs
the lines between reality and fiction. Unfortunately, the fiction only plays into the bleaker picture
that he is trying to paint: Latin America is in a state of unrest. In every corner of the continent,
there is a tyrannical ruler, or poverty, or civil war, or a ruthlessly violent drug trade. All the
while, Europe refuses to regard Latin America as the bastion of potential and a worthy part of the
global society. Marquez also addresses the question of why he writes in magical realism: to that
question, he says, in so many words, that the reality of the situation in Latin America makes it
hard to doubt anything. In his own words, the real problem is crucial problem has been a lack of
conventional means to render our lives believable. All the while, he lets us know that if Europe
would change its perspective of Latin America, then they would be more willing to assist. In the
midst of such turmoil, however, Marquez admirably retains his faith in the human race,
hearkening back to his main influence, William Faulkner.
5. Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Laureates lecture. Evaluate the quality
of the composition, organization and content and delivery of the lecture.
After skimming Marquez lecture, I can see that it is shorter than most other lectures.
This does not change it for better or worse, but rather it makes it that much more difficult for him
to express efficiently what he wants to say. Given Marquez views and his outspokenness on the
topics he covers, that could be a very difficult task. In my opinion, Marquez succeeds, as
expected, in every aspect of his lecture.
For one, the composition itself is masterful in itself. Although it takes more than one read
to understand why the story in the beginning makes sense in relation to the rest of the story, it
comes together quite nicely when you consider that Marquez is a magical realist; it only makes
sense that he would describe such a fantastic story in order to lay the foundation for his lecture.
The organization is also spot-on. I admire his transitions to different points, and how he also
gives such concrete examples of the points that he makes. His theses are more than well
supported with points in the lecture. I especially admire how clear and concise he is in his
writing, compared to other authors. While I do not agree with all of his views, at the very least,
Marquez shows the world his excellent use of words and how they can make a profound,
passionate statement. Moreover, he proves that a Nobel lecture need not be a dissertation rather
than a quick overview of the Laureates way of thinking and why he writes the way he does.
6. Trace the socio-historical, political, and cultural context of the Laureates work.
Looking at this question in particular, it could be said that Garcia Marquez writes solely
because the socio-historical context in which he lived warranted him to write. Marquez was born
on March 6, 1927, a century after Colombian Independence, but still in a time of much political
turmoil. Locally, according to Amy Sickels, there was an American fruit company that gave the
Colombian army permission to open fire on all of the unionized workers. Hundreds of workers
were left dead. Unfortunately, that would not end up being the biggest problem that Marquez
would face in his lifetime.
On a national and international level, Marquez describes himself the political corruptness
that he sees. Combined with the extreme poverty of Latin America and the violence of the drug
wars, Marquez was almost forced to write, seeing that he was stripped of the mindset as to be
able to think of his life as believable. Europe, seeing these problems, seems to have forgotten
the fruitful excess of their youth when it comes to Latin America. As a result, Garcia writes
critically about political structures, but he seeks to also draw comparisons to Europe in his
lecture. He is motivated to keep Latin America from becoming a westernized heart of
darkness, and he believes that with open honesty, willingness to create an opposite utopia,
and a different perspective, the world can be made into a better place.
7. Relate issues and needs that required change and innovation that the Laureate
addressed. Explain the impact of the Laureates breakthrough in a socio-
historical/political and cultural context.
First of all, as stated earlier, Marquez wastes no time in stating his contempt for Latin
American politics, as they tend to produce despotic rulers as well as brutal violence and stifling
poverty. Also, he finds fault with Europe and its reluctance to accept its past, as he finds concrete
examples of cities who took generations upon generations to become great. Fortunately, Garcia
still finds the good in man, and hopes to create a peaceful change.
8. Describe theoretical background and career preparation of the Laureate.
As a writer, Marquez had no formal training. He started at the University of Bogota to
study law, but found himself reading literature and writing stories. A breakthrough came when
he read Franz Kafkas Metamorphosis, as he didnt know anyone was allowed to write things
like that and that if he had known, he would have started a career in writing a long time ago.
Marquez also wears another hat as a journalist; it was there that he was able to express his true
feeling about the politics of Latin America.
9. Determine the extent of the Laureates use of an interdisciplinary/intercultural
approach to their work. Investigate the interdisciplinary applications of the Laureates
work.
Marquez work is not openly interdisciplinary, nor is it intercultural. From his lecture, the
only other discipline he utilizes is his vast knowledge of the history of his people. He also seems
to be deeply invested in political science. His knowledge of history and his interest in political
science (or at least the corruptness of the political process) motivates him to write novels, short
stories, and journal articles in the interest of creating a better tomorrow for his people.
10. Illustrate the strategies of leadership, civic engagement, and service that the Laureate
employed to achieve his or her goals.


Garcia Marquez never had any leadership experience in particular, besides writing for a
journal that exposed corrupt politics. However, he led a movement called the Boom, which was
an outburst of Latin American, leftist literature. Major players included Julio Cortzar from
Argentina, Carlos Fuentes from Mexico, and the Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa.
When it came to civic engagement, however, Garcia Marquez made his views on politics
known. Politics were of utmost importance to the Boom writers, and according to Amy Sickels,
Garcia wrote in magical realism form to draw attention to the fact that the weirdest things happen
every day, especially with the acts of dictators and corrupt politicians, as well as gang members.
11. Identify opposing views to the work of the Nobel Laureate and state your defense of
disagreement with the Laureate.
Armando Valladares, a Cuban poet and diplomat, writes a harsh criticism of Garcia
Marquez, stating that Garcia Marquez put his pen at the service of Fidel Castros tyranny, and
supporting the torture, imprisonment, and killings of those who opposed the Communist
Regime. Later, he exposes that Garcia Marquez had a teenage lover, young enough to be his
granddaughter, and that Marquez drove a white Mercedes Benz, a gift from Castro, supposedly
in exchange for defending Castros dictatorship. The same author goes on to condemn Garcia;
the article was written and published posthumously.
As to my sentiments about the article, I do believe that Valladares, while he may be
justified in his views, fails to provide any concrete evidence on any of his points. Valladares
writes that Marquez personal secretary (unnamed) told him about the teenage lover of the Nobel
winner, as well as his car that was supposedly a gift from Castro. Valladares also tells another
story about human rights activist Ricardo Bofill, who met with Marquez to provide him with a
series of documents and reports on the situation of several intellectuals in Cuba. Weeks later,
according to Valladares, Bofill was imprisoned; the only evidence they had were the documents
that Bofill had given Marquez. While these stories seem believable, they also seem to lack
integral details and they seem to come from an angry tabloid journalist whose sleuthing mission
was only half successful. Maybe I am defending a man whose personal life I do not know, but if
anything in his Nobel lecture is true, then Garcia would have never supported a dictator that has
so much in common with the dictators he renounces in his lecture.
12. Restate your personal reflections about the Laureate and use ARTStor.
While I do enjoy Garcia Marquez literature and its criticism of politics, I do find fault
with his views expressed in his Lecture. For example, I can appreciate that he attempts to call
Europe out on its failure to look upon Latin America as a younger version of itself, but in doing
so, he is effectively saying that Latin America is not yet evolved enough to establish democracy.
Granted, European imperialism upset the balance of leadership there, but I think his Nobel
lecture objectifies his beloved Latin America and seems to demean her, at least to less than
Europe.
Also, it is interesting to note Garcias political outspokenness, but it is possible that he
himself had no actual political theory of his own? Many political pundits in America have a
theory, but no actual leadership skills. His creativity and boldness are surely to be admired, but
Garcia never actually outlines his own political beliefs, or even any details of the opposite
utopia he hopes to create with his literature. In a sense, it seems to be a dream for freedom, but
no ideas on how to act. Then again, Marquez is an author. He does his job well, but it would still
be interesting to figure out how he would rule if he had the chance.
Despite the disagreements I have with Garcias points, overall, I can safely align
with his desire to create that opposite utopia, or more specifically, a new and sweeping utopia
of life, where no one will be able to decide for others how they die, where love will prove true
and happiness be possible, and where the races condemned to one hundred years of solitude will
have, at last and forever, a second opportunity on earth. The world has been at a loss of love
since the beginning of human history, and human lives have been lost at the hands of other
humans. One has to wonder if happiness is truly possible in a world full of people that are solely
concerned with their own happiness instead of the happiness of others. I do not write this paper
in search of a philosophy that will rid the world of all of its ills, but the Nobel Laureate that I am
writing about had such high aspirations. To write about him and to not acknowledge that the
world is in disarray and in need of love would be to disrespect not only his literary legacy, but
also his legacy of championing human rights and unconditional love and happiness.

Works Cited
Marquez, Gabriel Garcia. Nobel Lecture: The Solitude of Latin America. Nobelprize.org.
Nobel Media AB. Web. 5 May 2014.
Sickler, Amy. "Gabriel Garca Mrquez: Cultural and Historical Contexts." Critical insights:
Gabriel Garca Mrquez. Pasadena, CA [u.a.: Salem Press, 2010. . Print.]
Valladares, Armando. "Garcia Marquez: Castro Stooge." National Review., 21 Apr. 2014. Web.
5 May 2014. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376149/garc-m-rquez-castro-
stooge-armando-valladares>.