C'est la même chose

We are first introduced the idea of "meme" in Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins explains this idea as a cultural transmission or a unit of imitation. Some "examples of meme are tunes, ideas, catch phrases, clothes, fashions." (192) They "propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation." (192)

The website www.9gag.com, itself is full of memes. This website point is to entertain with humor its viewers. They show the same pictures, to make of fun of different real life scenarios. Examples of these memes, are shown below. They are not only seen on 9gag, although. They are able to be published throughout other world wide websites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. Its originality, starts to fade, and sooner or later, there is more than just one meaning. 

The Most Simple Game Ever Invented.

The title says it all. The game introduced in chapter 12 of this book is probably one of the easiest games I've ever played. Dawkins himself says that "it is so simple that I have known clever men misunderstand it completely, thinking that there must be more to it." (page 203)

This books explains it with a banker who pays out winning to the two players. "Suppose that I am playing against you. There are only two cards in each of our hands, labelled COOPERATE, and DEFECT. to play we each choose one of our cards and lay it face down on the table. Face down so that neither of us be influenced by the other's move: in effect, we move simultaneously. We now wait in suspense for to turn the cards over.The suspense is because our winnings depend not just on which card we have played (which we each know). but on the other player's card too (which we don't know until the banker reveals it). (page 203)

The cards that are played with are 2 by 2, meaning that there are four outcomes. 

"Outcome I: We both played cooperate. The banker pays each of us $300. This is respectable sum is called the Reward for the mutual cooperation. 

Outcome II: We have both played defect. The banker fines each of us $10. This called the Punishment for mutual defection. 

Outcome III You have played cooperate; I have played defect. That banker pays me $500 (the Temptation to defect) and fines you (the Sucker) $100. 

Outcome IV: You have played defect; I have played cooperate. The banker pays you the temptation payoff of $500 and fines me, the Sucker, $100." (page 203)

The whole idea of a dilemma starts when both of players play the defect card. From that second, one of the platers suffers the penalty for mutual defection. If one of them would have cooperated, the Sucker's payoff, either way would have been worse. No matter which way you can go, DEFFECT will always have the best outcome. The 'prisoner' comes from an imaginary example, which two men are in jail. What happens through out this games depends on what each on them do, and neither of the prisoners know what crime they have committed. The payoffs in this case, of course are "not in dollars, but in jail sentences... Both players know that whatever their opponent does, they themselves cannot do better than defect., yet both also know that if only both had cooperated, each one would have don better. If only... if only... if only there would be some way of reaching an agreement" (page 205-206) to make things easier. 

After reading the whole introduction of this, we started to play this game. We changed the payoffs into our own grading system, and started to play against each other. Seeing as we switched the payoff to our grading system, it was pretty obvious that the results of this game were going to have an impact on our grade. We saw how the suckers suffered, and how the temptation of defect, really does benefit all.  We analyzed this game and realized how it is valid for social interactions. Today, we live in a very competitive society. The only thing that people want in the world is success, and they will do whatever takes to get there. Some will cheat, and some will cooperate. There will be cases when those who cheat (play the defect card) and up winning, and seeing how thing are, they win most of the time. It's very rare to see others cooperate for their own benefit. They just think about themselves, why would they care about those who might get in the way, right? When we played this game in class, we see how people would start of cooperating, but as soon as the game was about to end, people played their defect card, and the player being played against, almost felt like they were being stabbed in the back. Maybe the whole idea of the defect card being the most beneficial outcome is to prove how selfish people can actually be. 

Whale vs. Dawkins

In class we heard a podcast about a whale being trapped in various nets. The divers who were out to save her believe that her pain was unexplainable. Removing net by net, and finally freeing this whale from pain, the divers start to feel that the whale was thanking each of them. As she would look deep into their eyes, it was almost like she was showing the gratitude that she felt. Richard Dawkins wrote the Selfish Gene in 1976. It's pretty basic on biology, but he mostly shares his point of view. He believes that whales or animals in general aren't able to feel anything at all. It's not scientifically  proven. If anything animals act the way they do because of the benefit received, or one that they will receive. This is exactly what Dawkins explains in his 10th chapter of the book. 

In his book he gives various specific theories that support his idea of animals being nothing but selfish. The first theory is none as the cave theory. It's suitable for camouflaged birds that crouch frozen in the undergrowth when danger is coming towards them. He states, "suppose a flock of such birds is feeding a field. A hawk flies past in the distance. he has not yet seen the flock and he is not flying directly towards them, but there is danger that his keen eyes will spot them at any moment and he will race into the attack. Suppose one member of the flock see the hawk but the rest have not yet done so. this  one sharped- eyed individual could immediately freeze and crouch in the grass. But this would do hime little good because his companions are still walking around conspicuously and noisily. Any one of them could attract the hawks attention and then the whole flock is in peril. From a purely selfish point of view the best policy for the individual who spots the hawk first is to hiss a quick warning to his companions and so shut them up and reduce the chance that they will inadvertently summon the hawk into his own vicinity." (page 168)   

The second theory is called Zahavi's theory. It can be put like this: "the crucial bit of lateral thinking is the idea that sotting, far from being a signal to other gazelles, is really aimed at the predators. It is noticed by the other gazelles and it affects their behavior, but this is incidental, for it is primarily selected as a signal to the predator. Translated roughly into English it makes: 'Look how high I can jump, I am obviously such a fit and healthy gazelle, you can't catch me, you would be much wiser to catch my neighbor who is not jumping so high!' In less anthropomorphic terms, genes for jumping high and ostentatiously are unlikely to be eaten by predator because predators tend to choose prey who look easy to catch..... According to this theory, the display is far from altruistic. If anything it is selfish, since its object is to persuade the predator to chance somebody else." (page 171)

In my opinion, I do believe that animals are much more than selfish. They can feel. They don't a spindle cell to feel anything either. They are living organism, just like we are. Just because they don't have five fingers on each hand, or on each foot, does not make them any less sensitive. We can get hurt, animals can too. We both can feel pain and both can feel scared. For example, a dog might feel the same pain we do when someone steps on his tail, just like us when we fell from our bikes. Bogs cry, when someone steps on them, and we cry when we fell off our bikes. We know a dog is scared when he hides behind his owners legs, and when we were little we would do the same thing with our parents. When a dog sees another dog he tends wags his tail, and maybe even bark to show excitement. We tend to smile, or jump up and down. So how is it that animals don't feel anything? The fact that they express things differently, doesn't mean that they are not capable of feeling. 

The Vocabulary Gene

Generations: a single stage in the development of populations 

Meiosis: process by which the number of chromosomes per cell is cut in half through the separation of homolog chromosomes in a diploid cell.

Heredity: passing of traits to offspring from previous ancestors.

Ancestor: One from whom a living organism is descended.

Point mutations: an error corresponding to single misprinted letter in a book. It is rare but clearly the longer genetic unit is. The more likely it is to be altered by a mutation somewhere along its length.

Inversion: rare kinds of mistake or mutation which has important long term consequences.

Selfishness: lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Population: group of individuals of the same species that live in the same area







Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.

Crossing over: process in which homologous chromosomes exchange portions of their chromatids during meiosis.

Embryonic Development: controlled by an interlocking web of relationships so complex that we had best not contemplate it. No one factor, genetic or environmental can be considered as the single cause of any part of a baby. All parts of a baby have a near infinite number of antecedent causes.

Prentice Hall Biology
New Oxford American Dictionary
The Selfish Gene 

All the Places You Could Go

In this whole entire book, there are 55 cities. I don't know if I am the only one, but when I read about each of them, I always think about which I would I like to live in or which I would like to travel to. It's more of a personal opinion, but who knows maybe you agree. 

We haven't really read much, but there are two that fascinate the most. One is from the very beginning of this novel, known as Despina. "When the camel driver sees, a t the horizon of the tableland, the pinnacles of the skyscrapers come into view." I'm going to be straight forward by saying that this quote is one of my arguments, simply because I have always wanted to see a skyscraper. Maybe even stand next to it, and feel bad about my height for a while. The camel driver, "sees himself at the head of a long caravan taking him away from the desert of the sea, toward oases of fresh palm trees'." I must admit, that the sea and palmtrees are also one of my biggest weakness. I am in love with the ocean. I could stay in all day, lay by side it all day, or just stare at it all day. Where there is a sea, you'll find me! Just kidding that's a lame rhyme, but that is the main reason why I would visit this town. 

I wouldn't go for various reasons as well. Every rose has it's throne right? One of them is because of "the chimneys bleching smoke." I can not stand the smell of smoke. I can not stand the fact that such a beautiful place is being contaminated with chimneys smoke. The fact that "girls are dancing barefoot, moving their arms, half hidden by their veils, and half revealed," kind of freaks me out. Besides those little defects, I don't see any other reason not to go "a border city between to deserts." 

Another city that really interests me is Zenobia. The idea that "no one remembers what need or command or desire drove Zenobia's founders to give their city this form, and so there is no telling whether it was satisfied by the city," brings me great curiosity to find it out. Of course I can't, I am only 15 years old, and after all, these are all just "invisible cities." When "you ask an inhabitant of Zenobia to describe his vision of a happy life, it is always a city like Zenobia that he imagines." Now that simply sentence is one and just enough reason to visit this place. Happiness, is the only thing I want in my life, and to be in a place that has it, well I'll take the first plane ride their. 

Zenobia is "set on dry terrain it stands on high pilings, and the houses are bamboo and zinc, with many platforms and balconies and placed on stilts at various heights, crossing one another, linked by ladders and hanging sidewalks, surmounted by cone-roofed belvederes, barrels storing water, weather vanes, jutting pulleys, and fish poles and cranes," and pretty much takes alway all the happiness that is in it away. Another problem, is that " it is pointless trying to decide whether Zenobia is classified among happy cities or among the unhappy." What if I arrive, and I am surrounded by the unhappy? The main reason why I am their is because of it's joy that it brings. What if I am just one of those unhappy people that are there looking it's joy? I'm happy, and I wan't to go to expirence the most happy I can be, if that even make sense. 

As I keep on reading I'll keep my eyes open for more cities to explore, because in this book, there are a lot of places to go.

Quotes about Despina found on pages 17-18
Quotes about Zenobia found on page 45

Reading Between the Lines

The book explores imagination with each of the descriptions. The majority of the book is just the description of 55 different cities. If you look deeper you find quotes that really touch you. That make you really think about what they are saying in the story. Some may even touch you, or be Tumblr material, if you know what I mean. They can be contoversial with those around you, or even with you're own thoughts. 

What really gave me the idea to write this blog entry about this specific topic, was the conversation between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan. Marco Polo states that "cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspective deceitful, and everything conceals something else." (44) When Khan responds saying that he has "neither desires or fears" (44) I realized, that this is a lie told very often. 

We all want something in life. It could be big or small. One can want to do be a doctor with a PHD or one might just one something as a simple as love. Things like this are desires that a person can experience throughout their lives. Desire is what makes you unique. It's what you chase after. It might even create character. Like mentioned before, if a person wants to be a Doctor, dedication, intelligence, patience, strength, are different characteristics you see in Doctors, or in those who have the desire of becoming one. People can try to hide these desires in fear of disappointment, leading them to tell a lie just like Kublai Khan, but we all know thats not true. A person should go after what they want. What if this goal gets accomplished? The feeling of succes that comes after well be worth it. What if you never try? What if you lie to yourself about no wanting to do what you dream? What if you lie to others? The feeling of regret, and not help but wonder what could have been may haunt you. 

I believe There are two types of people in the world who are afraid of everything. Who are scared of trying new things, and making a change into their lives. People like me. There are others who try new things every day. Who bring change, and do things that are out of ordinary. Crazy people. I don't really know if the fact that people have no fears is a lie or just a way of being in love with adventure.  So I don't really have such a strong opinion in this part of the sentence. I guess, it just depends on the person, their type of lifestyle. How they seem to characterize themselves, and how they read between the lines of this sentence and or novel. 

Invisible Ignorance

Section 2

Nostalgia: a wistful desire to return in though or in fact to a formertime in one's life

Canopied: a covering, usually of fabric, supported on poles or orsuspended above a bed, throne, exalted personage, orsacred object

Odalisques: a female salve or concubine in a harem, especially in thatof the sultan of Turkey 

Belvederes:  a building or architectural feature of a building, designedand situated to look out upon a pleasing scene. 

Undcipherable: to discover the meaning of anything obscure or difficult to trace or understand. 

Solstice: Either of the two times a year when the sun is at its greatest distance from the celestial equator: about June 21, when the sun reaches its northernmost point of the celestial sphere, or about December 22, when it reaches its southernmost point. 

Equinox: the time when the sun crossed the plane of the earth's equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (verna or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

Awnings: A roof like shelter of canvas or other material extending over a doorway , from the top of a window, over a deck, etc., in order to provide protection, as from the sun.

Oblique: Niether perpendicular no parallel to a given line or surface. 

Agile: Quick and well- coordinated in movement. 

Section 3
Sirocco: A warm, sultry south or southeast wind accompanied by rain, occurring in the same regions.

Porphyry: Any igneous rock containing coarse crystals, as phenocrysts, in a finer- grained groundmass.

Vellum: Calfskin, lambskin, kidskin, etc., treated for use as a writing surface.

Opium: Anything that causes dullness or inaction or that soothes the mind or emotions.

Deceit: The act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

"Dream- like" story telling.

To be honest, I don't know know what to expect from this novel. Judging it by its cover, it would never call my attention. The fact that there are pictures of cities smashed together, and then something, that to met seems like a ring of fire, burning down the city, isn't something that I would recognize. By the cover, I expect a very complex story. Too complex, that I will probably won't enjoy at all, at least that's what I thought when the book was placed in my hands.

I opened the first page, ready for torture. I prepared myself all afternoon for probably one of the most boring books, I will probably have to read in my high school years, but all of a sudden that seem to change. As a flipped pages, reading word for word, I have come to realize that this book isn't bad at all. What really called my attention is the detail that he put into the book when discovering cities like Diomira, Isidora, and Dorothea. Italo Calvino describes Diomira as, "a city with sixy silver domes, bronze statues of all the gods, streets paved with lead, a crystal theater, a golden cock that crows each morning on a tower." (page 7) Making me feel as if I were right there standing in front of the statues or the domes, or the crystal theater. When describing Isidora, "a city where the building have spiral staircases encrusted with spiral swashells, where perfect telescopes and violins are made, where the foreigner between two women always encounters a third... is the city of his dream," he was able to make me think about what my dream city would be like, or if this type of city, would be my dream.

Even though we haven't read the whole story, the way Italo Calvino writes, really gets my attention. It makes me feel like I am a part of the story too. When he is narrating the story, I am able to picture myself, experiencing all of it. For how little we have read, and what is yet to come, it's like every page is contained with dreams, and as soon as you open this book, you can feel the dreams happening right in front of you. If you look at the back of the book they describe Invisible Cities as a "dream like story telling," and so far I have to say, that I agree. Although, things may change. There is the possibility of this book turning out as bad, as I expected it to be. I'll keep my fingers crossed, and my hopes high, to read a book, aside from To Kill a Mockingbird, that will catch my eye, unlike every other English novel I have read. 

A New Beginning

There is a very famous quote that states, “Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end." Candide went through everything. He went from riches to absolutely nothing. He went from absolutely nothing to riches and to absolutely nothing again. He has seen the world for what it really is. What I really liked about this book is that in the end. Candide finally seems to realize that not everything that Pangloss says is true. Remember how I said that I wished for Pangloss philosphy to contridict itself? Well through out the book, in many cases it did.

Pangloss states that everything happens for the best. In Candides case, I don't really see how that is possible. Pangloss says that everything happens for a reason, and that we should just let things be. If Candide would have realized that this statement isn't really necessarly true, some situtations would have had a completely different outcome. Having a teacher as oblivious as Pangloss, could make you understand why Candide would think the way he did.

At the end of the book Candide says, "we must go and work on the garden." (page 144) After reading that simple sentence I realized that some sense was finally knocked into his head. After all the misery Candide and those in his life went through, they moved on and found a way to start all over. I see the "garden" as his life. When he says that he has to go work on it, I understood that if everything happend for a reason, he had to be the reason. Throughout most of the book he wasn't able to realize this. He was blinded by Pangloss's philosophies to see the truth. Not only that, but you could tell that he was very confused. He had one of the worlds most famous philosophers telling him one thing, and someone who has suffered as much as he did, telling him another. I think I would be pretty confused too. As the novel goes on, Candide seems to learn a little more about life every time he travels. With all the knowledge in his head and in his heart, he is able to come up with his own idea on life. In the end of the book you could tell that he realized that the way he lives his life, and the way things work out for it, depends on him. His life is in the palm of his own hands. He is the one in charge of his own life. If he wanted something to happen to it, then he would have to be the one to make it happen. This new way of living was his very new beginning. 

Pangloss vs. Martin

I don't know which I find more annoying. Pangloss is too naive to even realize that the world can be cruel, and Martin is so pessimistic, that it gets on my nerves. One sees the world as the world as if it was all rainbows and butterflies, while the other one just sees it as a place that was created "to drive us mad." (page 95).

The world is a good place, but it isn't perfect. Everyone has there ups and there downs. I don't believe that a person can live with just the good and just the bad. They will experience tough times but they will also pass through some very good memories. Take Candide for example. After being kicked out from his home, taken to war, ship wreck, almost hanged, and having the love of his life taken away from him, his stop at Eldorado seemed to almost make things right again. Another example is the old lady. She is someone who has really suffered, and somehow she is able to be in love with life.

I get it, both of these men come from totally different backgrounds. One comes from a place where everything is said to be perfect. He used to live in a mansion, doing what he loved most. While the other one was robbed by his wife, beaten by his son, and abandoned by his daughter. Pangloss had a good life. He has many different reasons to see why can life is bliss. Martin has been traumatized with all thats happend to him. He just can't accept that there is actually some good out there. It's very simple to understand why each of them think the way they do, the only problem is that they take their opinion of life to the extreme. I'll be honest, when someone is overly happy I find it annoying and disturbing, but when someone is overly pessimistic, I find it boring and disturbing as well. I think that person should live their life knowning that isn't always fair, that there will be times when horrible things will happen, but you need to learn how to rise above them. There's no right or wrong way of living life, but sometimes this can be key to really know what it's all about. But hey, I'm only 15 years-old, I'm still learning.

Too Good To Be True

After all the misery it seems after all that God did find a way to exchange all the bad with someone good. After almost being burned alive, Utopia came into their lives. 

Is it Utopia? I mean the second they arrive they find gold, rubbies, diamonds, everything anyone could ever dream about right? After that you find out that you don't have to pay for one of the biggest meals ever. It was a place where everybody had the same opinion. This could only mean that war was barely a subject being touched. It's a place where Candide could stay and be the richest man in the world. Of course it's Utopia. Everything just seems so perfect right? When I read this chapter, it definitely seemed like it. Life had finally brought these two people something good in their lives. It brought them what they need. It brought them hope. It could have made them realize that not all is bad out in the world. It had to be Utopia.

Then I start think about everything. There might be a possibility where it isn't Utopia. It could be like any other place in the world. It could be just simple, "Eldorado." It probably has nothing special about it. It may just see thing differently. Or it could be the fact that so many bad things has happend to them, that any little ray of light can seem like the whole sun. You know what I mean? Maybe it's not Utopia. Candide must not see it like that. He left paradise. I agree with Sophie Echeverry when she states Candide act of stupidity when he leaves. This place was given to him to show him that not all is bad. That life can bring good things to people. It's almost as if he's leaving perfection to find what makes up his life, misery.

"Perhaps God will have pity on us in the end."

This whole book is based on one specific question. Everything that happens or anything that is said bring us back to Voltaire's question, "why do bad things happen to good people?" Through out this whole novel, no good has ever come to those who have been a part of Candide's life. Some of these peoples life end in death, others repeat a cycle of misery.

Cacambo, Candide's slave through out a couple of his journeys, is a perfect example for this question. As far as we know he hasn't commit any crimes, he hasn't hurt anybody, it's almost like he's just one innocent human being. He has done so much for Candide. When he killed his brother-in-law, Cacambo was there to save him. He was the one who helped him escape without having to take the responsibility for anything. You'd think that some good karma would come his way, seeing as he is practically a hero, but no. Instead nature took its toll and led them to almost be toasted alive. 

Cacambo saves both of their lives by giving a inspiring speech. When finally making their way to the new world Cacambo states, "Perhaps God will have pity on us in the end." (page 73) This quote clearly shows how little hope they have for life. So many horrible things had happened to them, and none of them deserved any of it. That little hope that they have left is gone to the highest of powers to feel sorry for them, to bring something good in exchange for all the bad.  Out of the four elements of satire the one that really defines this moment is absurd. Like mention in previous blog posts, this book clearly has nothing to do with optimism. This quote represents the exact opposite. The characters of this book have such low opinions on life that in order for anything good to happen, they need pity. There's nothing optimistic going on in these peoples lives, even less in their thoughts. 

True Strength

I thought Condegonde had gone threw it all. I truly believed that no one had gone through so much trauma than her. I stood corrected in these last ten pages. The old women's story left me with my mouth wide open. I could never imagine someone to go threw so much pain. She went from so much to so little. She went from being the Popes daughter to being a torn up slave. She was beautiful, she had a husband, whom she loved, she had a family, and it's horrible to think that everything was taken away from her. Everything changed when she set sail to her beautiful estate near Gaeta. When the pirates attacked they took everything, and they took her, as well as her mother to Morocoo.

The old women described the place as if it was swimming in blood. There were about 50 civil wars going on at the time. Everyone fighting with everyone. She arrived to see these people fighting like "lions". To see these animals take her mother torn apart, slashed, and massacred. Even having to see, she held her head up high. Even after becoming a slave, and being trade to more than 5 different places, she held her head up high. Even after having a plague, she held her head up high. Even after being affected by the Turks who attacked the Russians, she held her head up high.

After everything that had happened to her, she admits that she has thought about killing herself. She was so in love with life, that she just couldn't. Having to go throw everything she did and still loving life is the perfect example of strength. This "old women" taught me the meaning of strength. She showed me that some stupid thing like your boyfriend breaking up with you, is nothing compared to her life story. She showed me what it is like to rise above things, to move on, and to make the best of what I have now. The past is the past. Everything she went threw was absurd. I honestly see absolutely see no optimism in this book. Everyone, especially this old lady, has trauma as a part of their life. If life was so good and perfect then none of these tragedies would have happened. It amazes me how that no matter what may have happend, she is in love with life. She still see's the good in the world. 

For the better or the worse?

Remember how we thought that Lady Condegonde was dead? It just turns out that she isn't. She is once again reunited with her love, Candide and explains absolutely everything that happened to her throughout the time they were seperated. 

At all started at her Thunder-ten-tronckh when the Bulgars arrived. They simply began there night at the house by cutting her father and brothers throat, and making a "mincemeat" of her mother. It makes me think whether this whole passage is hyperbole or absurdity. Why would it be hyperbole? Well when she starts to refer as her mothers death as a making of mincemeat, it made me think that she was really exaggerating things. I find it totally normal that she is referring to her moms death is such sort of way. I mean its her mother, being killed right in front of her eyes, things obviously will seem worse then they seem. This situation could leave a person's life traumatized. At the same time I don't see things being exaggerated at all. Some people seem to believe that violence is a way to solve problems, especially throughout the time this novel takes place. So why not? Why wouldn't people cut other throats? Why wouldn't someone be made into a mincemeat, while being killed? Even now a days, there are some cases where people use this type of violence, to fight for their views. I also find this a bit weird. It's kind of ironic to think that the people Candide, Condegonde love, used to fight for, were people that killed her whole entire family.

At the same time all of this just seems absurd. The books title is "Candide Voltaire" or "Optimism". In Merriam- Websters dictionary, it states that optimism specifically means a doctrine that this world is the possible world. After everything Condegonde went threw I find that there's no connection to her life story and optimism. After seeing her family members die, she was beaten, taken as a kitchen slave for a Jew and Inquisitor 7 days a week, she saw the death of two Jews, the death of Pangloss, someone she dearly loved, and saw how the love of her life was beaten as well. To be honest I can't find one single reason why there is any happiness in her world, or why her world would be the best. I know that sounds extremely depressing, but you can't say you disagree. I have no idea how she is able to keep her head held high, after all of this. I don't know how she is able to move on with her life, and act as if nothing had happend. I have absolutely no idea how she just accepting what happend to her. I guess something that does makes things a little "optimistic" is the fact that she reunited with Candide. She got someone to talk to, and someone who listened to every single word. After all the tragedy I personally believe thats exactly what she needed. Things started to twist around when a little green monster named jealousy got into Candide. The death of the Jew and the Inquisitor seemed to break every single bit of peace Condegone had in a way found.  So I ask you this: By reuniting with her long lost love was she able to fill up the whole in her heart, or just make matters in her life worse?

Naive Candide

If I had books like,  "Voltaire Candide" and "Dear John" put in front of my face, for me to read, I would never choose "Voltaire Candide". The only books that have really caught my eye are pathetic romantic novels. I have no idea why, but they just do. When we were first assigned this book, I honestly believed that it was going to be one of those dreadful books you always have to read for English class. For example, last year it was "The Catcher in the Rye". When I finally finished the second chapter, my low expectations suddenly seemed to rise. The whole plot of the past 6 chapters really got my attention. 

Basically this story revolves around Candide life.  He had it all. The big house, a philosopher as a tutor, and even what may be too seem as the love as his life. This book starts off with the "physical experiment" that he and his cousin (the love of his life), Lady Cunegonde do. The statement "physical experiment" has a connotation, that I never believed it did. To be honest, as I was reading I truly believed that they were really doing an actual experiment. It turns out that they were doing some other sort of experiment. That they were actually having sex. Out of the four elements of satire,  the one that really defines this part is absurdity. Why? Well, for one, I find it a little weird and twisted that Candide is having sex with his cousin. In today's culture it's seen as unusual, and in my opinion, gross. This whole intimacy eventually caused some problems for Candide.  Others looked down on this relationship, and he was eventually kicked out of his dream life, and had to go live life on his own. All because of this, things started to change.

With no home, no money, no food, Candide walked to neighboring town also known as Waldeverghoff-trarbk-dikdorff, and stopped at an inn. As he glanced through the window, two men spotted him. These two men described him "well-made young fellow." Why would this detail be so important? Why would these two men notice this specific detail? Eventually we find out that it's because they were going to use him as an admirer of the King of the Bulgars, and fight in his name. You see, this plan was pretty much a bust seeing as Candide eventually escaped to village nearby. He met a few people, but wasn't really liked or treated well. The only person who did was James, the Anabaptist. At the same time, he reunites with his old tutor, also known as Pangloss. He was reunited with him just to find out that his dear Cunegonde had died when she was disemboweled by Bulgar Soldiers. I kind of find that whole situation a little bit ironic seeing as, Candide was forced to fight as one as well.  Pangloss also tells him about the women that he loved, Paquette. He states that she was infected and perhaps even dead.  Infected of what? By what? How did she even know that she was infected? A franciscan was able to trace it back to the source. This makes me think that it could probably be something like STDS, since most of the people living in that house were sleeping with one another. Even Pangloss was sick. So sick he needed to be treated, but he had no money. If he were to be treated, it would be have to be done in some sort of favor like, charity even. When we think of catholics, we think of the fact that they are always giving back. That they always have to be doing some that goes along with charity. Well at least I do anyway. No Catholic would treat him though, the only person that did was James, the Anabaptist. It's kind of ironic right? Someone who isn't even baptized, doing Pagloss this favor. The sad part is that James eventually drowns when Candide, Pangloss, other passengers, and him sailed to Lisbon. 

They finally arrive, but only for more disater. They arrive to an earthquake. Where they find men, women, children crushed to death. One of the sailors traveling along with them, didn't seem to find this traumatizing at all. The only thing he was interested was finding money. This to me seemed absurd. How could a person be so sensitive? As if the last couple of pages couldn't be more tragic, Magnificent auto-da-fe was staged. This was because people seemed to believe that it would prevent earthquakes from happening. Dr. Pangloss was arrested for speaking out, and Candide, just being a listener was arrested as well. Pangloss was hanged and Candide was beaten. Things just didn't seem to work out for these two. The whole time Pangloss just kept on saying that there needed to be misery in order for there to be happiness. He said that everything was happening for a reason, so they shouldn't even try to prevent more tragedy. That every reaction had it's effect. I believe this whole idea too. The only thing is that, Pangloss would take it to another level. When something bad happens to you, or is going to happen to you, you can do what you can in order to change its "effect", create a new one. A new effect and a better one. You shouldn't just stop yourself from doing what you feel is going to have a positive outcome in the end, because everything that is happening around you is for a "reason." If they would have at least tried to fight for what they wanted as an effect, they could have avoided the death of James. Overall, this was what really frustrated me the most. Making me want to read more, to see if this philosophy would ever contradict itself.