Already in the first two sections of the novel, we encounter many different types of love from the three main characters. In the relationship between the elderly Dr. Urbino and Fermina, we see love that is merely convenient and passionless even at the very end. In the affair between Fermina and Florentino, however, we see love that is based on passion and fascination, as well as a touch of unrequited love. Even early on in the novel, Marquez shows us the many different shades of love and how they can entrance and control the people who fall into them.


The love between Fermina and Urbino in the first section shows the less romantic side of love. On the surface, the couple may appear to be still in love. As Marquez describes, they are dependent on one another and cannot be apart without thinking of the other. However, it quickly becomes clear that her love is not so pure, as Fermina is often annoyed by Urbino’s habits and inability to care for himself. Because they are both growing old and he is several years older, she has to care for him now that he is weakening. Fermina is contemptuous of her aging husband’s frailty and often will pretend to be asleep so she will not have to help him in the morning. There is also hidden resentment between them that comes pouring out in their only argument over soap. This argument, while over something trivial, becomes an outlet for any tensions or repressed anger. The tension skyrockets into a multi-month argument until Urbino finally lies and says that there was actually soap in the bathroom. She also becomes annoyed by how he urinates and finally pressures him into using the toilet like a woman. If there was any doubt before, we know that Fermina does not truly love Urbino because she thinks more about Florentino than about her deceased husband after the funeral. After all that time, loving her husband was more convenient and easy rather than passionate and deep. Even though she stays married to him for fifty years, Fermina does not love Urbino in the passionate, romantic way that we see Florentino loving her in the second section.


The love between Florentino and Fermina is vastly different and more romantic than her marriage to Urbino, except that, once again, he seems more in love than she does. Florentino’s love is passionate and instantaneous. After meeting her, he thinks of her constantly and writes a note that turns into a seventy-or-so page letter. Fermina notices him in the park every day and starts to pine for him as well. They both are in love but the intensity of his love is extreme and begins to frighten her after she reads the letter and their love becomes unequal. Even so, their love seems much more passionate and true than what we see of Fermina’s marriage to Urbino. For Fermina, this “relationship” is more passionate and deep. Through her eyes, we get to see the other, exciting side of love that we do not see in the first section of the novel.

In the first two sections of the novel, Marquez contrasts two types of love using the contrasting relationships in Fermina’s life. On the one hand, we see how love can be passionless and empty. In the other section, we see how love can be exciting and caring. Using Fermina’s life to contrast these two sides, Marquez builds anticipation in the book in a unique way. We as readers want to know which love affair was really the better one and what happened that Fermina ended up with “the wrong guy”. It is an effective tool that not only builds suspense but also shows readers the dual side of love and its power. (632)

Jason Compson Needs to Be Kicked in the Shins, Just Hold Back a Little Bit

Jason Compson is a jerk. It’s indisputable. You can probably justify his actions by pointing out that his mother is psychotic and his family is torn apart but you can’t deny it altogether. It is so easy to hate Jason, but there is a catch to every jerk on the planet, and Jason’s is one that makes him a philosophical problem in his own right. It doesn't quite change the fact that he's a jerk, but you might hesitate as your foot goes to kick him.

Jason is an outright jerk. He is cruel, racist, controlling, manipulative, and disrespectful. From the start we get the sense that Jason is the nicest person: “Once a bitch always a bitch” (180). Good first impression! His attitude toward other people is probably his worst quality. We see this attitude best in his interaction with Quentin and Luster. He is always cold and degrading to Quentin, even stealing the money her mother sends and calling her a slut. He taunts Luster with the show tickets and refuses to give him the tickets even though he has no reason not to let Luster use them. His behavior toward Caddy, though perhaps more understandable, is also openly hostile and cruel. He refuses to let Caddy see Quentin even when she offers him money and continuously sends money to support her daughter. He even implies that her money comes from prostitution. And while a small part of us cheers every time Jason tells off his mother, he is still being disrespectful to the one person that gives him credit. He is obviously a bluntly distasteful person.

We do have to give Jason a little credit for being smart. He has devised a scheme where he embezzles Caddy’s money gifts to Quentin without his mother or niece having the slightest idea of how much money he is acquiring. Now we can’t hate him for being stupid, but hating him for scheming his family is even better. As we learn more about him, we discern that Jason’s problems go far beyond irritability and bitterness. He also has a control complex that has become intertwined with his obsession with money and the stock market. He is acutely aware and quick to remind the family that he is the man and sole provider of the family, in a sense also reminding them that he is in charge. He plays mind games with his mother and Quentin, further bursting his ego. There is Jason in a nutshell. But with every bitter, emotionally disturbed sociopath there is a catch that redeems him ever so slightly.

So what could possibly redeem Jason in anyone’s eyes? Despite his open hostility toward his family, he works every day for money that not only feeds his stock addiction but also supports his family. So why do we care? Because he doesn’t have to do it. He obviously has no strong emotional ties to Quentin or his mother, so we know supporting his family is more for his benefit than theirs. In essence, he supports his family to cater to his own controlling and manipulative nature. But he still supports them. Oddly enough, he reminds me of Mrs. Joe from Great Expectations, who likewise supports a family she treats terribly. Now the debate begins. Is Jason at least sort of a good guy because he supports the family? If you are a member of Kant’s school of thought, Jason is still a jerk. According to Kant, it’s the intentions that matter. Jason’s intentions are obviously not honorable, so to the Kants of the world, Jason is still a jerk. Then there are the more…Machiavellian types. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. Therefore, Jason is a good guy in the sense that the family stays “afloat” because Jason brings home money. Both points of view have decent philosophical arguments going for them.

So it begs the question, who is really right? I agree with Kant personally—it’s about the intentions. Jason uses his family relative well-being to support his addiction to control, which, in my opinion, disqualifies him as a good person. He also counters any economic help with his constant battery of the family’s emotions, defeating the purpose of keeping them economically healthy in the first place. I admit that there is something to be said that he continuously works for and lives with people he doesn’t care about, but it is not enough to redeem him in my eyes. Jason is still a jerk, but maybe I’ll hold back just a bit when I get the chance to kick him in the shins. (747).