Red Eyes

George Orwell’s Politics And The English Language

Argument: The English language has become ugly and inactive due to the foolishness of our thoughts and our way of expressing them. This decay has further led to the decay in society.

No Limits: A Cliché

After a class dedicated to George Orwell and his beliefs on language, I feel that I should analyze the way Whitman’s talks. It was clear to me that the decay in language also led to the decay in society. They are connected and dependent upon each other. Orwell makes more emphasis on the way we are currently using language. Each time we try to use a French word or Greek word they decay speeds up. It can be considered sad or part of the normal change, but I personally think it is part of the change that must occur. Whitman, as a previous author, could have taught Orwell, and Orwell went ahead expressing that what Whitman wrote was great and how we must continue it. An author today will say that what Orwell wrote was great and will write about how to continue it. The future author will write about the present author, and so on. This process will continue to repeat itself, leading to a change, which does not have to be stopped. This change is what has kept the language alive and will continue to do so.

I now decided to take a passage from one of the poems: “I believe in those wing’d purposes, /And acknowledge red, yellow, white, playing within me, /And consider green and violet, and the tufted crown, intentional;/ And do not call the tortoise unworthy because she is not something else; /And the jay in the woods never studied the gamut, yet trills pretty well to me; /And the look of the bay mare shames silliness out of me” (13). Orwell mentioned that a good author would not have any extra words. When reading this poem it is hard for me to believe that not one word is superfluous. Reading it several times, the only thing that could be eliminated are some of the colors. This is merely a speculation, since in my lack of knowledge, I might not appreciate every word and therefore believe it can be eliminated. What this has taught me is that there are no limits to the learning and analysis that can be done. Nothing is extra until you can prove it.

A Different Approach: Words

The fist thing that struck me when I stared reading the poems was repetition: “I loafe and invite my Soul;

I lean and loafe at my ease, observing a spear of summer grass” (Poem 1). I do not know if repetition is a type of style, but if it is, Whitman loves it. I personally like repetition, to a certain point. It can be funny and will get the message across. When it turns bad, is when it starts becoming a tongue twister. Whitman has not gone to this extent but he is close. Even though his poems mention a range of different things his style stays the same.

In the third poem I encountered the mild tongue twister: “I have heard what the talkers were talking, the talk of the beginning and the end;

But I do not talk of the beginning or the end” (Poem 3). What this does is it creates a different image of the poem and changes the way I read it. I do not approach it as I would a novel. By doing this it is suddenly unique. We mentioned Clichés in class today, and what Whitman did can be an example of the opposite. Even though I do not know that much about poetry, his poems captivated me only be the wording.

Simple But Great

As I come to the end of Flaubert’s masterpiece I can only think of his theme. It is a story that is based on the boring life of Felicite and her misfortune. This plot might have been able to capture the reader for about twenty pages, but nor more. Flaubert decided to make a much longer book that is surprisingly entertaining. What then, could the reason for this be? The only answer is style. The way the book is written is the best part of the book. It is not a unique and unforgettable story but its style is. Each description gives the reader the option of performing a very detailed close reading: “He was called Loulou. His body was green, his head blue, the tips of his wings were pink and his breast was golden. But he had the tiresome tricks of biting his perch, pulling his feathers out, scattering refuse and spilling the water of his bath. Madame Aubain grew tired of him and gave him to Felicite for good” (Ch. 4). It is surprising that this is true, since writing it must have taken a very long time.

There is a certain simplicity and complexity that is felt when reading A Simple Soul. That balance is what makes it entertaining, and it is what gives the reader the choice of how to read the book. They can either analyze every word that is mentioned or read through the monotonous story of Felicite. The name, A Simple Soul, includes the word simple, which might allude to the stories simplicity or complexity. There is nothing that cannot be taken into consideration when reading, and that itself is worth writing a book about.

A Long Time

As a novice to style, the class we had today was very enlightening. I never believed that so much could be deducted from a single sentence. With this basic knowledge of style now in my head, I can go ahead and read Flaubert in a much more enriching way. His style is one that I have never read before. The descriptions of certain objects are amazing. His sentences, paragraphs, and chapters vary in length drastically. Chapter two is much longer than chapter one, and each paragraph not only introduces a new idea but it does it in different lengths. This format combined with the use of punctuation and commas maintains the reader interested.

He is able to describe monotony but his book is exactly the opposite: “Every Monday morning, the dealer in second-hand goods, who lived under the alley-way, spread out his wares on the sidewalk” (Chapter 2). This aspect is perhaps the one that I like the most about his style. Assimilation is something that I rarely notice, but Flaubert can do it so his words not only describe what is in the book but the book itself. A perfect example is one of the passages we read today: “The priest first read a condensed lesson of sacred history” (Chapter 2). The reader can see that the word “condensed” not only describes the priest but the sentence. It is small and to the point. The way style is used can only make me think of time. Flaubert has made each sentence so perfect that you could write several pages about it. Even though I doubted this could be possible Flaubert pulled it of. How long he took seems short in comparison to what he did.

The Average

As I read through Lutz’s essay, the first thing I noticed was they way he wrote it. The way he included his ideas with his life and past events is great. Not only does he mention his ideas at the time, but his new ideas about that topic. Readers can go through the whole essay as if it were a novel. The first ideas he proposes are very clear, even though he goes into a little to much dial around the middle. It might only be me, but his point could have gotten across without such an extensive explanation.

After reading through all of his ideas I realized that the one that had stuck to me the most was the first one: “I soon succumbed to the notion that to imagine was to claim to know in advance an entirely forgettable outcome. A calendar was hung in the kitchen as if to say: Expect more of the same”. Maybe it is because I believe monotony is worst part of life or because it was the first thing I read. The truth is, Lutz had an average life. Most people do everything on a very rigid schedule that repeats itself over and over again. Myself included, it is not the best part of life. My point is, I never thought reading about someone’s average life would be so fun. If someone would have asked me what I thought of reading a long essay about the monotony in a person life, me answer would have been “boring”. To my surprise it wasn’t. The only reason I can think of why this would happen is because we don’t read about it. Our own fear of reading the essay is what makes it great. It is something different that is very enjoyable.

A Big Joke

As the reader approaches the last chapter in the book, Pynchon once again decides to twist the story. After a whole book full of satire, I would have expected some sort of sum up of ideas or conclusion at the end. It could have been the only connection that was made by the author. What happens is Oedipa gives up on her mysterious quest and "settled back, to await the crying of lot 49” (152). It may have been the dissolution of the mystery she was trying to uncover or part of the simple joke in the book. As Pynchon himself taught us, the book is making fun of itself. The ending makes the readers form their own conclusion and guess what will become of Oedipa. Even though I may never know the true reason Pynchon choose this ending, the most probable motive is to make the reader laugh. What I may have thought was important turned out to be part of the big joke Pynchon played for the audience.

The wiki library turned out to be very helpful. I regret not having discovered it earlier since it helps you make the connections that you would otherwise not have made. Pynchon requires his audience to be a very educated and cult people. If they are not the connections may be missed. This would make Pynchon’s target a very educated one. These people could enjoy the book at its fullest; however most people do not know what some of the jokes mean. This wiki library makes the book much more universal and not only helps the reader but the author. As I end this journey I am not sure whether everything I read was a big joke or if part of the story, was for the stories sake. Just by thinking about this the story is turning into a joke. This is Pynchon’s real talent, the ability to keep a reader guessing. It is the great joke.

A Unique Irony

As I approached the end of chapter 5 I was confused. The book had been following a certain story and it suddenly introduced a totally different one. Every single character in the book seemed to go crazy. At this point the satire was getting the best of me. Pynchon has changed the way the readers view the characters so many times that I did not know the characters. This gives him a little bit of freedom to write about whatever he feels like. Making jokes can take a long time, especially if they have to be on the same topic. Another reason could be satire itself. The irony in what the character from the past chapter does in the present one. This change in characters not only confuses the reader but also keeps him interested. It is a mixture of two feelings that make the book unique.

Pynchon continues to amaze me with his ability to combine two very different topics: teachings and jokes. Even though he gives the reader all of the teachings under disguise, once in a while you are able to pick one up. When Oedipa enters the gay bar I thought it would only be funny. I was not expecting to learn anything that I could apply. To my surprise one man mentioned how his “big mistake was love. From this day I swear to stay of love: hetero, homo, bi, dog or cat, car, every type there is” (93). If I had not been paying attention I would have easily missed this. Love is a very complicated emotion. History has proven that people will go to great lengths for love. Not to love again is like saying you will not be happy again because you are afraid of being sad. Life has to be enjoyed and I think it is ironical that a gay person would propose an end to love.

An Immortal Talent

As I read this chapter one of the only things I could think about was immortality. A few weeks ago I decided to write a blog about this very same topic: Human Race: Outgrown. In this blog I mentioned how a person can become immortal if his ideas are immortal. The concept states, that if you leave something for the rest of the world you will be remembered. Chapter 4 specifically mentions how our society has “only one man per invention“ (70). In a way this can be considered selfish. If more people are able to take credit for certain things more people will be remembered. Nobody remembers the man who made the TV a smaller machine, but everyone remembers who made the TV. At this point, I was very happy since a topic I had mentioned before came up. The next few pages then mention immortality. Pynchon had connected the ideas in the same way I had. Maybe it is very common, but I still felt inspired. To my surprise, I had come to a conclusion too fast. The connection is made but the conclusion is totally different.

The most important realization I came upon was about myself. I had thought that I was on the right track and that most people agreed with what I had said. I was wrong. Oedipa continues to make the reader laugh through a smart type of satire. Some might read satire to entertain themselves, and others too learn. Pynchon was able to do both. At the beginning of the book I thought that we were reading it to learn about satire. I now know that it approaches some very deep topics. The reader is given a great opportunity and a choice when reading The Crying Of Lot 49.

A Frail Understanding

One of the aspects that has been able to capture my attention is the different names used in the book. As I read a book I dont not usually pay attention to the names. In saying pay attention, I mean analyze what the names might symbolize. If there is a name that has a meaning, you will not find more than one. Pynchon on the other hand decided to give every name a funny aspect. There is Dr. Hilarious who “sounded like Pierce doing a Gestapo officer” (7). There is also the name Oedipa, Mike Fallopian, Mucho Mass, and many more. All of these names mean something and are there to give the reader a certain context. Lets take the example of Oedipa. Her name could be referring to the mythological character. The best thing about it, is that it works. I do form a different image in my mind about a certain character if a can associate him with something I know.

There is one name I cannot understand, and that is Mike Fallopian. He is introduced as “A frail young man in a drip-dry suit slid into the seat across from them, introduced himself as Mike Fallopian, and begun proselytizing for an organization known as the Peter Punguid Society” (34-35). Ok, at this point I can assume that his name means something. The only problem is I can’t figure out what. I tried looking his name up in Google and all I came up with was a Fallopian Tube. I can see no association with him and a Fallopian Tube. I hope that as I read on my understanding of the book also moves on and I get to understand what all of these things mean.

A Narcissistic Target

As I read chapter 2, many of my previously formed conclusions were corrected. I believed that this book would turn out to be very hard to read. The first paragraph did not include periods and time was clearly not important for the author. It was a completely non-linear story that seemed weird and interesting. This second chapter was very different. Not only were there fewer stories, but everything seemed to fall into place. Pynchon had a drastic change in attitude when she wrote each chapter. Everything seemed clear and I did not have to reread anything. I have the impression that by changing the way she writes every chapter the reader is constantly interested and suspicious of what is to come.

After I ended this second section I noticed an aspect of the book that had previously eluded me. Pynchon, in her attempt to create satire, changes the names of several known places in order to give the reader a certain background: “San Narcisco lay further south, near L.A. like many named places in California it was less an identifiable city than a grouping of concepts…” (13). The concept of “San Narcisco” is great. The reader can associate it with Narcissus and it immediately changes the way you look at San Francisco. After this allusion I did not only realize his way of explaining but about his target. If there is a reference to narcissism, his readers must be educated. Most people can read the book, but if you do not have a certain education you will not get most of the jokes. I am impressed with all of the changes that I have discovered from one chapter to the next and look forward to discovering more.

Informal Fun

As I began reading the first paragraph of Crying of Lot 49 the only thing I could process was the lack of periods. In my confusion, the next thing I noticed was how the stories were connected. There is no real chronological or logical connection, the only solution was to start all over again. After a slower reading and rereading I finally got what the author was trying to say. When the main character decided to start using the,“when Pierce had got maybe halfway up, her lovely hair turned, through some sinister sorcery, into a great unanchored wig, and down he fell, on his ass” (11). At this point was able to make all of the connections. I might not be accustomed to the way in which Pynchon writes but I do find it fun. It is sort of a challenge that you have to decipher. Things are not clear and it allows for many interpretations. I like the language that is used since it is sort of casual. Dawkins wrote in a more formal and strict manner. By being informal you can associate with the characters in a more personal way. I look forward to reading the rest of the book.

Concluding An Introduction

As I approach the end of Dawkins journey, I start thinking of my first blogs. My comments ranged from a book that proposes some great ideas to a book that clearly did not make sense. As I mentioned in Writing: An Expression, the way Dawkins introduces new ideas is amazing. I may not agree with many of the ideas planted but I do believe that the way they are planted is very captivating. The reader feels as if he had a connection with the author. The way Dawkins ended the book was very abrupt. Maybe because this is a science book and not a novel, the author has the liberty to be abrupt. I have no doubt even though some of the evidence used in the book is outdated, the main ideas are still valid. Every chapter focuses on a different topic, which in turn revolves around the main idea. This allows certain pieces of the book to be eliminated and others to be studied without hurting the readers understanding. Dawkins was able to make his ideas immortal.

The conclusion to his ideas is not only a summary of what was mentioned previously but an introduction to new ones: “a parasite whose genes aspire to the same destiny as the genes of its host shares all the interests of its host and will eventually cease to act parasitically” (245). This idea made me think of what a parasite is. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, a parasite is “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense”. As this last idea moves around in my head, I realized that the whole book is based on this example. The same principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is used. The parasites original purpose (as the definition states) was to benefit at the expense of another. If this parasite realized that this other wants the same things it needs they will work together. As soon as the other person does not have our same inters in mind he is expendable. The parasite principle will then come into effect and we will take all that we can from him before he dies. This simple example is all that I needed in order to form the connection that the whole book has wanted me to form. Every person learns in a different way and maybe that is what the rest o the examples are for. Everybody has part of the Selfish Gene; however, some people are better at hiding it.

Constant Change

As we go deeper and deeper into what Dawkins proposes, I find many flaws in his theories. I do not know if he is talking about a utopia or about our world, what he proposes will only work in a utopia. He mentions, “Since one male can theoretically produce enough sperm to service a harem of 100 females we should suppose that females should outnumber males in animal populations by 100 to 1” (143). This might be true, unfortunately we can not choose weather to have a boy or a girl. If nature did not intend for us to be able to choose, and we still have a very large population of males, it might mean that it was mean to be. Males might have other purposes like hunting or caring for the women. They might not all be needed for reproduction but they are certainly needed for something else.

As I write this blog I remembered lady Macbeth. According to my standards she is the opposite of what a women should be. Macbeth is not convinced about what he should do in order to become king. His lady on the other hand believes that he has to do anything it takes. The man and the women might have switched roles. Normally, according to the Selfish Gene, men have a very small role, which is to reproduce. If it is true than Lady Macbeth does not agree with Dawkins. Macbeth is not only used to reproduce but to gain power, and protection. Maybe our genes were meant to do what Dawkins proposes but we clearly do not obey. They are constantly changing.

A Great Predator

One of the many realizations I have come to notice by reading The Selfish Gene is how lost humans are. We are desperately trying to find a purpose and a meaning for everything, and not very worried about the species itself. It is very true that humans are selfish beings. They have gotten to a point were they only care about their closed circles. There are obviously some exceptions, but in general, we do not care about what the person across the street does with his life. As I was looking for an article to write about I started thinking about our differences with animals? I found a blog by Olivia Judson (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/#more-1285) called A long, Melancholy Roar. In this blog from the New York Times she mentions how many animals have caused deaths in recent years. The numbers seem large, but she then mentions “More recently, however, it’s been the case that the mammal most likely to kill a human is: a human. Murder and war have long been more important causes of death for us than predatory wild animals” (Olivia Jude). She is right. We can many times focus on how others kill us but we never think of how we kill ourselves. We are the greatest predators on the planet and don’t even notice it. What Dawkins suggests makes a lot of sense when you compare it to animal behavior.

The Use Of Men

Human Race: Outgrown

This morning, in my ethics class, we discussed the importance of the brain. The teacher led us to conclude that the brain was the only important part of the body. He made the students realize how little we know about the world. All life could be is a dream, which we have created ourselves. Usually I do not like to ask myself these questions. They only lead to frustration and discomfort. I may never answer them and I prefer to enjoy life as it is. Even though nobody really knows what our purpose on earth really is, almost everyone wants to leave a mark. Everyone wants humanity to remember them. It can be done in many ways: Killing, saving, leading and so forth, but the point is we want to be remembered.

In chapter eight of the book Dawkins mentions how “…genes are the immortals, or rather, they are defined as genetic entities that come close to deserving the title” (34). If you want to be remembered being immortal is certainly the answer. If we look at our existence in a matter of time we are a small dot. Our influence is of course proportionate. A gene on the other hand has a greater impact than all of humanity combined. For one it cannot die and therefore, constantly evolve. It is always learning and making itself better. The simplest but greatest difference is the way they are immortal. Humans will only live forever if they are forever remembered. If for some reason, our memories were to be wiped nobody would know who George Washington is. He has suddenly become mortal. Genes on the other hand are immortal physically. They cannot be destroyed. By being self-dependent they have outgrown the human species in every possible way.

Writing: An Expression

As we continue to enter the world that Dawkins proposes, I found that the way he introduces new ideas is very direct. There are many authors who include these very wordy introductions for a simple idea. A few paragraphs later they do it again. This process goes on and on, and unless it is what you are looking for, it can be tiring. Dawkins on the other hand simply states, “This chapter is mostly about the much-misunderstood topic of aggression” (66). This is a great example of a direct, to the point introduction. It is giving the reader the option of deciding if he wants to read the chapter quickly. He does not have to read for ten minutes and then decide that it is not what he is looking for. Since this is a science book the importance of this choice is even greater. Most people who read science books do it to inform themselves and you would like to know weather to read the book or not. This way of writing is not only included in the introductions to main ideas but in the main ideas themselves.

Something else that is great about the way Dawkins writes is how he answers the reader’s questions. It is as if he knew what the reader would think of and then simply answer it: “All they can do is set it up beforehand; then the survival machine is on its own, and the genes can only sit passively inside” (52). As I was reading this passage in my mind, the question of why this happened immediately came up. To my surprise the next paragraph was dedicated to answering my question. This ability that can be seen in the author is one that I have seen in few. Even though I do not agree with what is being stated as I mentioned in Purpose: True Or False, I greatly admire the way he is able to express himself. The connections he is able to make in the readers mind have captivated me.

Purpose: True Or False

Because the Selfish Gene is a science book, I decided to ask my science teacher about it. She told me that it was well written, but in order to use it for scientific purposes you had to update many of its hypothesis. As science never stops growing and each second we are thinking of new reasons for everything, I asked myself why Dawkins wrote the book. He mentions, “Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence” (1). This theory would make humans an intelligent species. If we were able to get as far as to know why we exist why try and continue developing. As the author is quick to mention, humans are merely machines made to transport genes. Dawkins might agree with this and maybe that is, but the rest of the population does not seem to agree with him. If his writings are now outdated it means that we continue to grow and that maybe, only maybe, our purpose is greater than what is being suggested. What proved his theory wrong is our simple urge to continue expanding. Returning to my conversation about science I was told he had written a more recent book. I do not have to know what that book is about in order to deduce that he had new ideas and wanted to publish them, which proves my point.

Approaching the end of the fourth chapter I was able to come to a conclusion. The only thing that serves a greater purpose is a gene. If our purpose can be completed by a bus and “The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less” (45), this book is an extra. Humans do not need to now what their purpose is. It really doesn’t matter if we are an intelligent species or not. The truth is, we should enjoy what we have even if it is an illusion. That is what Dawkins is doing. By writing this book, he feels that he is informing the population and making them “intelligent”. He continues to contradict what he is stating with what he is living. I look forward to figuring out what the real purpose of this book is.

Undefined Questioning

As I begin reading The Selfish Gene a connection in my mind is immediately made. Dawkins is suggesting a totally depressing state of life. Many pieces of literature try to state the meaning of life, unsuccessfully. I believe the answer to this question lies in each individual. There are many theories about why human beings were created and I have heard many of them. Religion is one of the strongest reasons of being that we use today but our rational mind is taking over. As Dawkins proposes that “they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence (20).” I was completely surprised. This theory is completely depressing. If it is true, I now understand the purpose of religion. To live knowing that we are useless, except to harvest the “selfish gene”, this thought will destroy the species. The author clearly states that we are an intelligent race, and if we know that we are living in order act as machines then we are no longer acting as machines. Maybe our original purpose was to serve as a tool but as we evolve that purpose has now changed.

The first impression I have of this book is a good one. The author is clear in his writing but he is also very bold. As an inexperienced reader, I find it amazing that he will go out and say “The trouble with these books is that their authors got it totally and utterly wrong” (2). The authors he is criticizing will say the same thing about him. What difference would it have made to the reader if Dawkins mentions that those authors are wrong. After I continued reading I realized that his theory is so radical that if he criticized the other authors he would receive attention. A theory that might otherwise be disregarded as fiction, when compared to serious works can receive certain validity. As new theories are unveiled and we move away from belief and into rationality, more questions grow. The need to answer these questions has to be met and by reading this book we are.

Incapable Of Satisfaction

As we approach the final chapters of Candide’s story the reader is shown the conclusion to all of the past events. As the chapters subtitle clearly states, Conclusion, every teaching is given a certain importance. Some things are disregarded and the reader is, in a way, told they are wrong: “Pangloss allowed that his sufferings had been uniformly horrible; but as he had once maintained that everything would turn out right in some marvelous way, he still maintained it would, however little he believed it” (140). The change in Pangloss throughout the book led me to one idea. The human race is incapable of true satisfaction. This idea is what Voltaire wanted the reader to get to. The suffering and joy that is experienced in Candide’s life meant he was never happy. Pangloss believed strongly in what he said but life made that determination change. He made others believe something that he now did not believe. Few moments of joy marked Candide’s life: Cunegonde, the finding of El Dorado, and some others. These moments of joy led to the search of more joy and the consequence was the loss of happiness.

In one of the final chapters Candide asks if “…men have always massacred each other” (96). The response Martin gives him leads us to believe that it is human nature to do what we do. Candide does not agree with the answer and mentions “‘Oh, but there’s a great difference,’ said Candide; ‘for free Will…’” (96). This answer is one I have been looking for since the first chapter. I my first blog, Voltaire: Free Or Trapped, I mentioned free will and what Candide thought of it. Most of what I mentioned was speculation, but I now know that he does believe in free will. Voltaire was able to conclude all of the main ideas he in one point discussed, leaving the reader with great knowledge.

A Vicious Circle

Candide has received a lot of knowledge as he advances from place to place. His arrival to El Dorado taught him one of the most valuable lessons he has learned so far. It might not have been so important for Candide but in our society it definitely is. Money is what buys most people happiness these days. If you are poor but have some values, you might wonder how nice it must be to be rich. If you are rich you might not have values. The point is that people are rarely happy. We are never satisfied with what we have. Upon his arrival to El Dorado Candide realizes “how perishable are the riches of this world. There is nothing solid but virtue” (85). This statement summarizes the whole idea of materialism and the effect it has on our society.

In the New York Times article “We Don’t Surrender Until We Have To” a man is forced to learn these truths. It can many times take an accident or a near death experience to make us realize how we are wasting what we have. Why do we hold such a great importance to material things? Maybe it is because we like to look good. It is a common thought that if I wear the latest clothes and drive the newest car people will like me. What this attitude proves is that we are not content having most things if we are missing a little. Many people then resent the one that has what they don’t. The rich person knows that a person with fewer resources can be as happy as he is and the poorer person believes that if he had what the richer one has he would be much happier. It is a vicious circle that must stop; although how to stop it remains a mystery to me.

No Choice

In these chapters, a big change can be seen in Candide. At the beginning of his life he was a more accepting and peaceful person. If someone would propose something that did not sound very good he would do it. As he develops and learns, his attitude and tolerance evolve: “My master Pangloss used to tell me that men are equal; and I shall marry her without any hesitation” (67). Candide expresses what he has learned and clearly states that he is going to proceed with his plan. Some might see this as a deterioration of his character but I see it as an improvement. You always have to respect others but you can also express your ideas. Candide is now self-confident person who can express his ideas even if others disagree.

Race has always been a big part of the world. Even though slavery has been abolished discrimination still continues. When Candide expresses his wishes to marry Cunegonde he is rejected. People many times judge those whom their loved ones are going to spend their time with, and just because of class some are rejected. Since Candide was not part of the royalty that was expected he was not worthy. Instead of looking at how much love is being expressed the colonel looks at status. In this video we can see how a father and mother make a daughter marry a certain man. This tradition is part of many countries and still exists today. Voltaire tries to show the reader the wrongdoing of this, from an early stage in history. Even though Candide many times criticizes what has happened in his past he is living in the present. Unlike Billy Pilgrim he is able to regret certain decisions while living in the present.

Peer Pressure

In Chapter 14 of Candide the Voltaire targets people who take advantage of others. Cacambo, Candide’s new slave, strongly believes in this principle. If you have an opportunity to take advantage of someone for your own benefit do it: “When you don’t get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other. Fresh sights and fresh adventures are always welcome” (62). It is the same principle as cheating. If someone can copy off their neighbor’s paper without studying and receive the same grade, enjoy it. There is no reason to pass on an opportunity like that one. I can understand why that can sound interesting but the problem is, when there is no one to copy from you are lost. We many times realize our mistakes to late, because we did not pay attention to what others told us.

Voltaire is trying to imply the wrongdoing in taking advantage of others. This can be confused with taking advantage of situations, but it is totally different. When you take advantage of something you have to do it according to a certain moral standing. If you are taking advantage of something and by doing it you are not being moral don’t do it. The human desire to always have more can be very powerful. The only way to stop that desire is by being rational. Candide did not strike me as a person who would do this in his rational mind but his thinking is impaired. Since he is in a tough spot and cant find any moral solutions, he takes the easy way out. I wonder if Candide would have done the same thing if he hadn’t met Cacambo. You can many times make a decision due to others influence. We learned this in Radio labs Choice and it makes a lot of sense. It is where the principle of peer pressure comes from.

The Border Of Perfection

These two chapters have been very interesting and captivating. The best way to learn is through experience, and since you can’t experience everything, learning from others experiences is also great. The reader is told several stories which all include tragedy. It is a recurring theme that Voltaire has very present in his mind. Each time I see a movie or hear a story that has to do with a suicide I think it is ridiculous. Why would someone end his life? There is no turning back, no way to say sorry. You just end everything. What can be so bad that merits terminating everything? The bible mentions suicide as a sin. If you commit suicide you will go to hell. I am not very fond of the bible and I do not always agree with what it mentions, but I do agree with this part. I have learned a lot by reading Candide. The experiences he goes through and the attitude he shows us towards each of them are exemplary.

Surprisingly, the book touches upon suicide. Some people live their entire lives without joy and happiness. It is a classic tragedy. As I mentioned, I do not agree with suicide, but what I learned in this chapter has changed my point of view: “I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our most melancholy propensities; for is there anything more stupid than to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away” (57). This statement is correct and has proven me wrong. We are always trying to do what interests us and not do what we dislike. If we despise life, why should you continue living? I could not find an answer to this question, and that is why I agree with this statement. There are still many reasons why suicide is not the right choice, but I have to accept that it sometimes is. I now realize that there is much for me to learn. There is no limit to a certain topic, an expert can always learn more. We must continue to try and reach the borders of perfection without expecting it in order to live happily.

A Rare Awareness

There are many ways in which we cope with misfortune. Some people suffer for the rest of their lives, some get over it very quickly, and some relate it to other stories in order to feel better. As I was reading Candide I noticed how everybody has gone through some type of misfortune. If “all things are necessarily connected and arranged for the best” as Pangloss mentions then we should not suffer. Bad things do not exist. All that happens is great. The first time I read all of this I was not convinced with what it was being suggesting. As I go deeper into the book I realized that maybe, what Pangloss taught Candide was wrong. He was very important at the beginning of the book and his death came as a great surprise to me. I wonder if his death was a way of telling the reader that his ideas must die with him.

Competition is something that can be either deadly or great. This urge is what pushes us to beat the limits and the odds and surpass every obstacle. It is one of the few reasons why we can advance so rapidly. The satisfaction we get when we are good at something or better than the other that people go to great lengths to achieve it. It is where cheating started and will probably continue for as long as we exist. Voltaire shows this to the reader by telling Cunegonde’s story: “Unless you have been ravished by two Bulgars, had two stabs in your belly, and two of your country houses demolished; unless you have had two mothers and two fathers butchered before your eyes and beheld two of your lovers flogged at an auto-da-fé, I don’t see how you can rival me, especially as I am a baron’s daughter with seventy-two quarterings in my coat of arms, and yet have served as a kitchen maid (p.48-49).” By saying that she suffered more than the others makes her feel empowered. It is very ironical. You should not feel proud of you tragedy. Voltaire gives the reader a lot of room for interpretation and that means that there is more room for learning.

Curiosity And What It Gives Us

These two chapters in the book prove to be very important. The simple death of Pangloss is devastating to the story. Through the book the reader has learned everything from him. It might be Candide who applies it but it is Pangloss who teaches it. The only thing that comes to my mind would be that Candide already learned everything that he had to. If this is true then I am surprised. Candide has a life with a lot of tragedy and many times he does not handle situation correctly. This mentor experiences a very strange death: “…Pangloss was hanged, though that was not the usual practice on those occasions” (37). Does his death symbolize his importance? The student is quick to say that Pangloss is “the greatest of philosophers” (37) and maybe that is why he is given that special treatment. Each time I see a movie or read a book where the main character dies I like it. It changes that cliché where good always wins against bad. This is a great way to learn. You many times learn more through mistakes than through success.

One of the reasons the reader learns so much from Candide’s life, is because he questions everything. Curiosity is one of the greatest attributes god gave us and it is what allows us to expand. The urge to improve is one of the things that separates us from animals. Humanity loves to criticize the way it is doing things and talk about destruction. Voltaire mentions the world in a much more optimistic manner: “If this is the best of all possible worlds […] what can the rest be like” (37)? This theory might be true and if it is, I do not know if I should feel happy or let down. I love the world but to think of it as the best there is, is not exactly inspiring. All of the questions that are posed in the book make me wonder, what Voltaire was thinking about when he wrote the book. The only way we can answer this question is to ask ourselves the questions.

The Purpose Of Life

These past few days we have been listening to Radio Lab, they mention how bad things leave a larger mark on you than good ones. A tragedy can leave a person completely marked for life. It is part of your self-preservation instinct to remember them and make sure that they don’t happen again. Voltaire as well as Epictetus, mentions how everything happens for a reason. We can see how Epictetus mentions that you have to let go of many things and accept what is meant to happen. Candide mentions, “all is for the best in this world of ours” (27) as one of Panglose’s teachings. If this is true then a death will be for the best and you have to accept it. As I mentioned in my previous blog Voltaire: Free Or Trapped, Epictetus and Candide have many things in common. A difference that changes the whole way you read each of them is, Candide is written as a story. As events occur in his life the reader learns.

A particular part of the story caught my attention. When there was a big commotion on the boat and one sailor falls into the water, another one decides to save him but “The efforts he made were so strenuous, however, that he was pitched into the sea in full view of the sailor, who left him to perish without taking the slightest notice” (32) What Voltaire is trying to teach the reader is to do things without thinking of the outcome. If the sailor who helped the one in the water stopped and doubted whether to save him or not, the sailor could have drowned. He did what he believed was right and even though he did not receive the same treatment, what he did was right. If you stop and think if the person you are helping will do the same to you, there is no reason to help. This is something that has to come from the heart spontaneously. I cannot understand what Voltaire was thinking about when he gave this example. It can have several meanings and a person can go through it without noticing what he is trying to say. Epictetus, on the other hand, does everything straight to the point. What were Voltaire’s intentions with this book? Was it meant as a story or as a handbook?

Voltaire: Free Or Trapped

The way that Candide is written is very different form Epictetus. In the previous book we read, you had straight to the point lectures. There was no story to it, and what the entire Handbook wanted was to get the message across. Entertainment was not a major factor. The author assumed that if someone was reading his book he wanted to learn and not entertain himself. I understand that learning can be very entertaining, but the type of entertainment I am referring to is the one you get in a novel. It used a few examples but there was no set story line. On the other hand the short part of Candide I have read, does have a story line. It is a great mix between teaching and entertainment. There is a teacher having conversations or sharing experiences with his student: “His tutor, Pangloss, was the recognized authority in the household on all maters of learning, and young Candide listened to his teaching with that unhesitating faith which marked his age and character” (19-20). The reader listens to this story and learns from what the teacher mentions. It is as if the student where the reader. From what I have read I can associate it with Ishmael.

A theme that has captivated me and that we have discussed in class is free will. Before I started this school year I had no special interest in the topic, but I now see it everywhere. Almost every text mentions it or something that can relate to it. I have heard many opinions about our purpose in life. Some I agree with and some I discard right away. Voltaire believes that “…everything was made for a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose” (20). This theory seems very interesting. It does not mention that someone is restricted to doing something in particular, but you can assume that if I was meant for something I have to do it. I wonder if you can do something that you are not meant to do? If “everything is made for the best purpose” then would a thief be doing what he was meant to do? As I read the book I hope to gain some more answers to what Voltaire believes about free will.

To Give Without Receiving

Today in class we were discussing how one shouldn’t take advice from others. The only good that this would do you is becoming like the rest of the crowd. It is every person’s unique personality and abilities that make the human race great. Epictetus does not believe in this principle. In fact, he rejects it so much that he wrote a handbook. The main problem I see in things like handbooks, is not that we will all end up the same, but that the person writing it cant apply what he is teaching. As life goes on we receive many different pieces of advice from many different sources. Weather you know it or not, each day we receive advice form the news, movies, radio, teachers, friends and many other things. The important thing is to be able to decide which one to apply in your life and which one to ignore. Some times people have ideas and decide that the world should know about what they are thinking. This is basic principle of writing. Epictetus had some ideas on how to live and the way you should react to different circumstances in life. The point that I am trying to make is that if you suggest something you should be able to do it.

In these final sections of The Handbook of Epictetus I found one of the hardest things to do: “…when someone else’s little slave boy breaks his cup we are to say, “Its one of those things that just happen.” Certainly then, when your own cup is broken you should be just the way you were when the other person’s was broken” (26). We are many times fast to judge others on their decisions when we hold no part in the problem. It is human nature to try to reach the top, and some feel that by lowering others they will stand out. The thing is, when they have the same problem, they would not treat it as they said you should treat it. This fits in perfectly with the topic of advice. You should be permitted to give out advice if you would use it. If a situation comes up where Epictetus has to make a choice like the ones he mentioned in his handbook but treats it differently, he is a liar. You must not pay attention to his teachings and continue on. I am not suggesting that you should not take advice, but that you must be careful whom you take it from.

Life: A Choice

Dear Mr. Frost,

As a fellow writer myself, I wanted to recognize your ability to demonstrate the options and the “TWO roads” (Frost)… people must choose from. This is mentioned in your poem The Road Not Taken. As I read the tile I could not understand your reasoning. Everybody takes a different road. Some might be similar but the single act of being born under different parents means a different road. Maybe you are referring to a broader road (good and evil). If so please clarify. It is very important to be able to recognize your objectives, and, based upon them select a path. If that path does not work out try the next one. In my teachings I many times mention death and how “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us (1, Epictetus).” This is an important distinction, which permits us to live peacefully. In my Handbook I mention a master who’s slave boy did a wrong thing. He can choose between hitting the boy or not. Life is filled with crossroads and choices, and deciding which ones to pay attention to and which ones not to is very important.

After doing a little close reading I realized that the character in your poem picked “…the one less traveled by” (Frost). This act proved to make a big difference but I would like to know if it was for the good or for the bad. The way in which your poem is written does not invite the reader to listen to what you are saying. If you simply read a piece of my writing you will notice how direct it is. There is little room for interpretation and my message gets across. This is harder to do in your poem and an inexperienced reader will not get your point. I suggest that you change your style and make it more universal. A great idea can be lost if it is told in the wrong way. And that is your case. Still, I admire your understanding of the choices in life. Many hope to get there some day.

Sincerely,

Epictetus

Against The Current

These past few days we have been discussing the possibilities of choice and of free will. I have heard several people’s conclusions and have come to draw my own. In life there is partial free will. You do not choose to be born a “slave boy” but you do choose between hitting him or not. This is clearly mentioned “And remember, you cannot demand an equal share if you did not do the same things, with a view to getting things that are not up to us” (25). This made me change my previous conclusion. If someone who works harder can get more, then we are not stuck into the positions we were born into. A beggar who works hard can advance through society and maybe, a few generations later his family will not be that of beggars. This symbolizes change, and that the desire to accomplish something is the only thing needed to accomplish it. It is obviously easier for some to do what they please, but through hard work everyone can pull through. Yes, it is true that we cannot choose our appearance or our abilities but if we do all that is possible with what we have failure cannot occur.

We can also see very close ties between letting go and free will. Someone who lets go obviously has free will, and the simple act of being alive, means that there is free will. As humans, it is in our nature to look forward to things. We look forward to things like a banquet and to things like having children. It is in the way that we form these expectations that we are able to go through life. I personally go through the whole week waiting for the weekend, only to get there and start again. Some might say that if this is done, life is pointless. We create problems in order to solve them, and spend our whole lives trying to find the answers to things that will not affect life in general. Is this Handbook suggesting that in order to obtain a utopia free will must be stopped? If we create the places that we are born into, then there has is total free will. A beggar and a wealthy man are both created by society. We choose to create everything that is here today. Are we defying nature’s rules?