Talk:Love in the Time of Cholera
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Love in the Time of Cholera article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Colombia||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
this is really poorly written, could use a complete revamping...
Agreed. An encyclopedia article on a novel should not read like a rave review. The opening paragraph used to include the sentence "The novel, a picaresque (sic) tale of unrequited love, deeply explores the idea that suffering for love is a kind of nobility." Unless you can provide references showing that the novel is "picturesque" and "deep" then this is only your opinion and therefore should not be in this article. As a side note, words should generally be spelled correctly as well. Ssilk 16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please see picaresque. 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
Having to do with the meaning of the title: could "Love in the Time of Cholera" possibly have a move mundane meeting . . . like maybe the fact that the world experienced nearly continuous choera pandemics from the early 1800's up until the 1920's? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonnieJosephine (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've never commented on wikipedia before and literary analysis has never been one of my strong suits. But I just finished reading this work and came to this page to find some explanation for all the bird symbolism in this novel. In this novel, birds are everywhere! Unfortunately, I didn't find what I was looking for.
I do, however, like how some one has mentioned Humbert Humbert and Lolita in this article. In Florentino's last serious affair, it was very interesting to see Marquez so brazenly doffing his hat to Nabokov.-- Nannygoatstrut (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the text "THE CORRECT TRANSLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN..." is condescending and unnecessary, not to mention clearly incorrect. The disease Cholera figures prominently in the plot. And the author is still alive. Presumably he had some input into what the novel was titled when it was translated into English. Cavalaxis (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The plot has been laid bare. As i've just started to read the book i found it really disappointing that the plot should discuss the end of the story. I request the whole second paragraph(especially this sentence:"Urbino proves in the end not to have been an entirely faithful husband, confessing one affair to Fermina many years into their marriage") to be re-phrased or to be done away with entirely. Or at the least, there should be a spoiler warning. This is my first "talk" on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmemilord (talk • contribs) 10:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia almost always reveals the full plot of a book - if you don't want spoilers don't read the whole plot section before you've read it. This isn't going to change.Mdb23b (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Translation of Title
THE CORRECT TRANSLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN: LOVE IN THE TIME OF ANGER, FURY OR RAGE. Cholera is the diarrhea produced by vibriom cholerae, but the same word "colera" in spanish, (with indetical spelling as the disease) denotes the emotions of anger, fury or rage. In Spanish makes a complete sense. It is a beautiful and poetic title in Spanish. It goes with the story in the novel.
- No, it can't go back. That purported translation is wrong, because cólera meaning "choler/anger/fury/rage" is a feminine noun in Spanish (la cólera), whereas in the title it is clearly a masculine noun (el cólera), therefore meaning "cholera" unambiguously. To mean "in the time of choler" rather than "in the time of cholera", the title should have been El amor en los tiempos de la cólera (instead of El amor en los tiempos del cólera). This grammatical distinction that clearly disambiguates the meaning in the context of that sentence can be double-checked by anyone just by looking it up in any decent dictionary of Spanish (such as the DRAE or the María Moliner). Sure, because of the homonymy (which to some extent also works in English with the near-homonymy between choler/choleric and cholera), there's an insinuation for the reader to connect both meanings and equate the choler of emotional lovesickness with an actual physical sickness like cholera. But the translation of the title is unmistakably and unarguably "cholera", not "choler/anger", the grammatical context here (masculine definite article) leaving no room for ambiguity in this respect. User 220.127.116.11 had better tidy up their knowledge of Spanish before making misinformed claims. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Material removed 18 months ago
There seems to have been a good deal of material that was removed about 18 months ago, and not fully restored (diff here). Some of the edits were probably improvements, but some of the material that was lost appears to have been well-written, appropriate, and well-sourced, and IMHO would strengthen the article if it were restored. Thoughts? Goldenband (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that Barranquilla and not Cartagena is the setting for the novel. I don't know either city well, and could accept the idea that the two are conflated, but Barranquilla's location at the mouth of the Magdalena, and the fact that Elbers is a character in the novel as well as a historic figure commemorated in this city point strongly--I can cite more examples if needed.22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-cholera.html Here's a quote, which they seem to have a source for: "... a Caribbean seaport city, unnamed but said to be a composite of Cartagena and Barranquilla..." So perhaps some of the flavor of Cartagena is added, but the physical location of Barranquilla is the one that makes sense.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)