Madeline's Reviews > Love in the Time of Cholera
Love in the Time of Cholera
by
by

LET ME EXPLAIN, GUYS.
Okay. I like Marquez. I think his writing is beautiful, his settings are evocative and masterfully portrayed, and yes, his books are pretty romantic, and I always enjoy magical realism (this one could have used more of that last bit, though). The last twenty pages of the book even manged to suck me into the romance of the story, and I found myself finally really invested in this love story instead of being vaguely creeped out (we'll get there). Look, I even found a really nice passage to quote:
"It was as if they had leapt over the arduous calvary of conjugal life and gone straight to the heart of love. They were together in silence like an old married couple wary of life, beyond the pitfalls of passion, beyond the brutal mockery of hope and the phantoms of disillusion: beyond love. For they had lived together long enough to know that love was always love, anytime and anyplace, but it was more solid the closer it came to death."
See? That's fucking beautiful, and even if I didn't like the story itself, I still liked the writing. So call off the dogs, Marquez apologists, and let's get to the ranting portion of the review.
Fair warning to all who proceed past this point: I am preparing to don my Feminist Rage hat and shout about rape culture. Those who plan to leave mean comments calling me an idiot or telling me that I misunderstood the book, remember that you were warned. BEWARE, FOR HERE BE DRAGONS AND ANGRY FEMINISTS.
Here's something I learned about myself while reading this: I have absolutely no patience for books about obsession disguised as love. I hated it in Twilight, I hated it in Wuthering Heights, I hated it in The Phantom of the Opera, and I hated it here. It would be one thing, I decided, if Fermina Daza felt as passionately about Florentino Ariza as he felt about her. But she didn't love him. For her, their romance was a brief fling in her teens, and she stopped loving him when she returned from her trip. She continued not loving him, until he wears her down (after writing her letters constantly despite her explicitly telling him to fuck off out of her life) and she basically shrugs her shoulders and says, fine, might as well.
The lesson men can take from this book is that if a woman says "no" (as Fermina frequently and clearly says to Florentino), she really means, "make me change my mind." NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE. THIS PHILOSOPHY IS NOT OKAY AND IT IS WHY RAPE CULTURE EXISTS. NO MEANS FUCKING NO, EVERYBODY. IF A WOMAN TELLS YOU TO LEAVE HER ALONE, YOU LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE. IT IS NOT ROMANTIC TO OBSESS ABOUT HER FOR FIFTY YEARS, IT IS CREEPY.
And OF COURSE Florentino still fucks anything that moves while claiming to be in love with Fermina, because he is a man and that's just how it works. Which leads me to my next ranting point: this book romanticizes rape.
(you can still get out, guys - it's only going to get worse from here)
First there was the intensely unsettling way Florentino loses his virginity: while traveling on a ship, a woman drags him into her cabin and forces him to have sex with her. Then Florentino falls in love with her. Because of course he does. I was willing to chalk this scene up to the common misconception that men cannot be sexually assaulted because men are horny dogs who are always up for sex no matter what - fine, whatever, I'll let it go. But then later, a minor female character describes the time she got raped, and I'm going to let you guys read this while I do yoga breaths in the corner and count to ten slowly:
"When she was still very young, a strong, able man whose face she never saw took her by surprise, threw her down on the jetty, ripped her clothes off, and made instantaneous and frenetic love to her. Lying there on the rocks, her body covered with cuts and bruises, she had wanted that man to stay forever so she could die of love in his arms."
...
Once more with feeling: NOPE.
AND THEN, as the creepy pedophilic cherry on top of this rape sundae, Florentino's last affair is with a child. When he is in his sixties. The best part is that he doesn't even use the classic pedophile's defense of "yes, she's young, but she ACTS like a grown woman!" No, Florentino sees that this child is going to be smoking hot when she grows up, and decides that he can't wait that long. Then this passage happens:
"She was still a child in every sense of the word, with braces on her teeth and the scrapes of elementary school on her knees, but he saw right away the kind of woman she was soon going to be, and he cultivated her during a slow year of Saturdays at the circus, Sundays in the park with ice cream, childish late afternoons, and he won her confidence, he won her affection, he led her by the hand, with the gentle astuteness of a kind grandfather, toward his secret slaughterhouse."
The hero of Love in the Time of Cholera, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a round of applause.
If anyone wants to join me in the corner, I will be staying here for the rest of the week.
Okay. I like Marquez. I think his writing is beautiful, his settings are evocative and masterfully portrayed, and yes, his books are pretty romantic, and I always enjoy magical realism (this one could have used more of that last bit, though). The last twenty pages of the book even manged to suck me into the romance of the story, and I found myself finally really invested in this love story instead of being vaguely creeped out (we'll get there). Look, I even found a really nice passage to quote:
"It was as if they had leapt over the arduous calvary of conjugal life and gone straight to the heart of love. They were together in silence like an old married couple wary of life, beyond the pitfalls of passion, beyond the brutal mockery of hope and the phantoms of disillusion: beyond love. For they had lived together long enough to know that love was always love, anytime and anyplace, but it was more solid the closer it came to death."
See? That's fucking beautiful, and even if I didn't like the story itself, I still liked the writing. So call off the dogs, Marquez apologists, and let's get to the ranting portion of the review.
Fair warning to all who proceed past this point: I am preparing to don my Feminist Rage hat and shout about rape culture. Those who plan to leave mean comments calling me an idiot or telling me that I misunderstood the book, remember that you were warned. BEWARE, FOR HERE BE DRAGONS AND ANGRY FEMINISTS.
Here's something I learned about myself while reading this: I have absolutely no patience for books about obsession disguised as love. I hated it in Twilight, I hated it in Wuthering Heights, I hated it in The Phantom of the Opera, and I hated it here. It would be one thing, I decided, if Fermina Daza felt as passionately about Florentino Ariza as he felt about her. But she didn't love him. For her, their romance was a brief fling in her teens, and she stopped loving him when she returned from her trip. She continued not loving him, until he wears her down (after writing her letters constantly despite her explicitly telling him to fuck off out of her life) and she basically shrugs her shoulders and says, fine, might as well.
The lesson men can take from this book is that if a woman says "no" (as Fermina frequently and clearly says to Florentino), she really means, "make me change my mind." NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE. THIS PHILOSOPHY IS NOT OKAY AND IT IS WHY RAPE CULTURE EXISTS. NO MEANS FUCKING NO, EVERYBODY. IF A WOMAN TELLS YOU TO LEAVE HER ALONE, YOU LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE. IT IS NOT ROMANTIC TO OBSESS ABOUT HER FOR FIFTY YEARS, IT IS CREEPY.
And OF COURSE Florentino still fucks anything that moves while claiming to be in love with Fermina, because he is a man and that's just how it works. Which leads me to my next ranting point: this book romanticizes rape.
(you can still get out, guys - it's only going to get worse from here)
First there was the intensely unsettling way Florentino loses his virginity: while traveling on a ship, a woman drags him into her cabin and forces him to have sex with her. Then Florentino falls in love with her. Because of course he does. I was willing to chalk this scene up to the common misconception that men cannot be sexually assaulted because men are horny dogs who are always up for sex no matter what - fine, whatever, I'll let it go. But then later, a minor female character describes the time she got raped, and I'm going to let you guys read this while I do yoga breaths in the corner and count to ten slowly:
"When she was still very young, a strong, able man whose face she never saw took her by surprise, threw her down on the jetty, ripped her clothes off, and made instantaneous and frenetic love to her. Lying there on the rocks, her body covered with cuts and bruises, she had wanted that man to stay forever so she could die of love in his arms."
...
Once more with feeling: NOPE.
AND THEN, as the creepy pedophilic cherry on top of this rape sundae, Florentino's last affair is with a child. When he is in his sixties. The best part is that he doesn't even use the classic pedophile's defense of "yes, she's young, but she ACTS like a grown woman!" No, Florentino sees that this child is going to be smoking hot when she grows up, and decides that he can't wait that long. Then this passage happens:
"She was still a child in every sense of the word, with braces on her teeth and the scrapes of elementary school on her knees, but he saw right away the kind of woman she was soon going to be, and he cultivated her during a slow year of Saturdays at the circus, Sundays in the park with ice cream, childish late afternoons, and he won her confidence, he won her affection, he led her by the hand, with the gentle astuteness of a kind grandfather, toward his secret slaughterhouse."
The hero of Love in the Time of Cholera, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a round of applause.
If anyone wants to join me in the corner, I will be staying here for the rest of the week.
4923 likes · Like
�
flag
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Love in the Time of Cholera.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 351-400 of 698 (698 new)
message 351:
by
Brian
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jan 25, 2020 09:47AM

reply
|
flag











my Buddhist husband was glad to have read your interview, as well. He noted that he would have found the various scenes and assumptions hard to digest


Tina wrote: "Thank you! All of this is so true, plus by the end this trash bag of a man gets what he has always wanted? Not even sure why this book is popular."
I appreciated your tenacity, (the same I held for Border Trilogy). Your closing statement about Garcia being a Nobel award winner made me look upwards in my mind to the general abstract, which where I go when contemplating power dynamics, how many of that awarding board were men..... and what record do any of the women on that board, if there were any, for upholding or challenging Patriarchy?



Or, this is a 'Perfect' story of the everyday dominance and abuse that men too are suffering from and know not how to step away from. These sorts of narratives maintain by the endless reweaving narratives of patriarchal abuse. where violence is fetishcised and conflated with sex, perversely forced into association with love...
I would not know how a complex being in feedback loop with its self and the environment could even want to aspire to 'perfect'. Let's hear more about harmony in its ebb and flow and return. The cycles of creating and being in well being with others. We need to start unraveling this abuse of our nature by telling ourselves stories of how we can try. The Unforgettable Lightness of Being comes to mind despite the the sadness, there was an attempt.


I wholeheartedly agree. The problem, seems to be one of marketing. Had this book not been so advertised as "one of the most romantic books of all time" readers -myself included- might be more ready to appreciate it for what it is, rather than what it is said to be.

men, it is time for literature that speaks to the other 50% of the population.... ENOUGH of the 'romance' of dominance, abuse of women. It mutilates the humanity of men as well as women.

Fellow lady, first of all, I implore you to at least read the book before you speak with such fervor against it. It doesn't do justice to your argument to have adopted the opinion -even if, and sometimes especially when - it is the most popular one, instead of taking the time to formulate your own. ...and frankly this type of attribute is not one that I personally like associated with anyone supposedly advocating for my sex.
While I understand your frustrations, comments such as "it is time for literature that speaks to the other 50%" is confusing considering the book was published in 1985 -not to mention that certain Gray colored, female spawned abominations no less, dominated best sellers' lists from 2011-2017. What it is that you're suggesting? Because it sounds like what your suggesting is censorship in the name of political correctness. One of the more serious plagues of our time.
We cannot change the past and in fact, being able to be informed and have educated conversations about the truth of the past -and the literature it birthed- is an invaluable tool for any constructive dialogue on change. In short: two wrongs don't make a right.

First of all, I am not critiquing this book, I have taken to heart the review of a fellow reader who uses criteria of analysis and participation that suit my experience of books. I work in the sector of violence, (am preparing a talk about busting myths about rape), so I choose not to read the book due to core failings to enhance my life in a positive manner. I sacrificed my mental well being already reading a series of books (Border Trilogy) in honor of what I recieved from men as books they love and found such a mixture of negative experiences and emotions and RARE pearls small imagery, wording, and even less self reflection. So, NO. I maintain my right to NOT read this book, and maintain my right to not be silenced as I support a fellow reviewer and maintain my right to make a call to the male world to create new narratives about caring men struggling in this current model of socialisation. I have donated enough of my time to male lonely cowboy in far west, violence, shallow renditions of women, mansplaining of patriarchy's dealings with women....

I can support and share your cause and still disagree with the methods employed to further it. For one thing, I can hardly imagine any man -let alone one not particularly inclined- being inspired to reevaluate his ideas of what love and respect for women is, just because a couple of girls (that's us) "trash-talked" a piece of literature they may have enjoyed reading, not to mention one that for better or worse, is backed by all the "accolades" of a literary landmark.
The point of my original comment to Corey was that creating anti-heroes and exposing the parts of them that are relatable, forces our own morality and beliefs into question, which is one of the highest literary achievements an author can hope for.
I would also defend your right (and whoever else's) to choose what to consume as a reader, including this book. But the fact remains, that you are currently engaging in a discussion on the merits of a specific book within a forum designed for that purpose. If you are not, as you put it, "critiquing this book" then perhaps this isn't the appropriate forum for stating your case.
I wouldn't dream of silencing anyone but it might be worth asking whether your efforts here, are truly working towards supporting your cause. And in the end can anyone ever be "told" how to love?

There were complaints about this review getting so much attention, I replied and you say that this is not the forum for my considerations? Please recognise this as an attempt to silence a person.









Like with 300 years of Solitude, I felt I had taken a trip into that world of mystical colourful characters. I loved the book and recommend to all who seek to understand how love plays out in conservative settings, how different people negotiated their lives in a new country with a political system based on aristocracy and dictates of the 'old world'.


