#foreveralone

This internet meme has become very popular lately. This happens through sharing on popular sites such as facebook, twitter, tumblr, 9gag, etc... in order for others to see them. This fcae means "forever alone" a phrase that has become very common among friends and specially girls who continously say they will never have someone to be with. Since its origins it has repeteadly been used in websites as making fun of socially akward people  thinkthey will be lonely for the rest of their lives. It has become popular because of the humor it causes amongst people.

Give to Recieve... Or Not

            You give what you recieve. Us humans are always looking for power, superiority, and of course, revenge if something bad is done to us. We are always fighting for success, no matter who we may hurt in the process. I related this to what Dawkins talked about"cooperate" and "defect". If I have the chance to lose nothing but let someone else win everything, or win equally as my opponent, or lose along with my opponent, what would I do? Considering these options, I could either take a risk and win or take that risk and lose.

            This is what Dawkins said about Tit for Tat. Both players begin cooperating, both beneffiting themselves equally, "in the next move, each player copies the other´s previous move" (pg. 210). This got me thinking: Having the chance to win everything, why wouldnt I take the risk? But its more complicated than that. We are always looking for competition in order to benefit ourselves and obtain success. This cooperate and defect game made me realize that despite the fact that we could lose, that small chance of achieving success over our opponent is what makes us competitive and fearless (in this case).

            It happened to me when I was playing the game in class. The first two turns, my opponent and myself both scored cooperate, both benefitting ourselves with a total of .6 points each. But in the third turn, I asked myself "what if he cooperates? Why wouldnt he if he has done this for the first two turns?". So I defected, and as a matter of act, I won .5 points while he won none. This brings us back to Dawkin´s theory of Tit for Tat. The next turn, my opponent repeated the action I had done previously. I did the same, costing both if us the loss of .1 points. However, this theory or strategy didnt apply for the fifth and last term. I cooperated, thinking that since we had both lost this time it would be better not to risk it, costing me the loss of .1 points. This was Dawkin´s Naive Prober strategy. "Say on a random one and ten moves, it [the player] throws gracious defection and claims the high temptation score" (pg. 210). This is exactly what happened. Temptation was what led us to take the risk of defecting, and we both won but list as well.

            This blog will be one of the many that I have written that criticize human behaviour and society. We are at a constant competition, our lives revolve around it, even though we may not notice.  However, even though this selfishness and competition may lead us to our wanted success, it may also make it hard to trust others, which is exactly what Darwin shows in this game. In some cases, due to the lack of trust, people cooperate in all their moves. They do this because of the risk there is of defecting if the other person does the same. It is better to lose no points than to lose one right? Or is it better to take the risk of gaining 5 points while your opponent wins none?


            It is a dilemma. But why do we defect if it is the only way that we can win maximum points? Why not cooperate all time, that way, there is a big chance of winning but losing nothing. We defect because of the slight chance we have of making our opponent failing greatly against us, winning advantage, which is in my opinion, what our society really revolves around: our constant urge for success, revenge, and benef

The Selfishness of the Animal World

            I already criticized the book enough so I have no other option than to write about its meaning. Despite my criticism, there is something I found interesting, and it is the way I related the "selfishness" of the genes to the selfishness of people. However, I want to keep clear that I still think the book is very boring. I jumped to this conclusion because of the way I saw that each part of the gene or the process of each organelle and DNA work independently, on their own. Each part occupies itself on doing their job. Independently. I think that thats why Dawkins describes them as selfish, and it is because of how independent and "self centered" they are, as well as humans and animals.

            This has a close relationship to humans. Of course, this does not apply to all of us, but I have to admit that most of the time we put ourselves before everything else. Its our nature: Humans are selfish, and self centered, and independent. Thats the relationship I found that we have with genes, we do everything for our own benefit and we do our part, rarely going beyond expectations to satisfy others. But I believe that society would work no other way. Yes, society is pretty messed up by now, but what if we constantly tried to satisfy others or do everything ourselves? It would be impossible. For example: Doctors are doctors, politicians are politicians, and teachers are teachers. But imagine how the society would be if we tried to be and do everything all at once. It wouldn't work because I believe we are in a way meant to be selfish and independent.

            As a result, we have the whole point of the book: Evolution. Selfishness is what makes us advance, despite the fact that sometimes being selfish may not be the best option. But is this really what Dawkins means? I believe this is why he compares us so much with the animal kingdom. Its our nature.

            However, Dawkins does mention how working together does help our lives (and the ones of animals), and how that is also our nature. "If animals live together in groups their genes must get more benefit out of the association than they put in. A pack of hyenas can catch prey so much larger than a lone hyena" (p.166). Here, Dawkins is saying that even though our genes are independent and selfish, as well as we are, sometimes things can be done better with some help, after all, our society not only relies on our selfishness but also on our need for help or company.

           This is why I agree with Dawkins in the sense that we are very similar to the animal kingdom. By nature, we are selfish and self centered, just as animals are and function through the food chain. Ones die so others can live. Humans ourselves live in our own food cycle, each being selfish and independent to get to the top and succeed yet needing the help of others in order to live properly. That is the cycle of life, which revolves around evolution and natural selection, the mayor topic and message Dawkins wants to transmit through this boring informative book.

Don't Read This Book!

            I hate The Selfish Gene. I feel as if I were reading my biology textbook studying for the final exam. Its like a textbook explained in first person. I believe the book is boring, the font is extremely small, and since nothing aside from facts about genes and reproduction and biology is mentioned, the book is very slow. The only thing I have to admit that is helpful about the book is that it is really going to help me in the final exam, but other than that, i don't even understand how the book can be "The million copy international bestseller".

            Maybe its me that doesn't understand any kind of meaningful message the book may have, but I really feel that I'm reading a textbook. Yes, I have to admit that I can relate the book to the selfishness of people and society, but I don't understand why the author has to talk about it and explain it through writing what I'm supposed to learn in Biology. Nothing in the book happens! Why would I care about cistrons or gene pool or how many pairs of chromosomes we have? Im not going to study medicine or anything related to that, so do I really have to know all this? Sure, it would be fine if the book mentioned a thing or two about genetics, or about reproduction, or even about proteins, but how is it possible to write a 332 page book that goes on and on literally explaining all parts of genetics? Just stating the facts and definitions, nothing else.

            Thank God the book is at least easy to understand! Since it is pure facts and meanings, no further analyzing is needed (in my opinion). But how can there not be a single character or plot? That wouldn't make the book such a pain. Yes, the author is very bright and "original" or however you want to call it, and the book may be interesting for many people, but I just don't want or like to read it. 332 pages? Seriously? How much is there to say?

            Not only does the content of the book bore me, but also the tiny tiny font. I don't even want to imagine how long the book would be like if the font were bigger. Since it is so small, I take even more time reading because I get dizzy. I like to read, but a book that is more informative than my biology textbook that has no illustrations and looks like a dictionary? Not really my thing.

Dreams or Reality?

            I noticed that the book is also related to the movie Inception. I believe this because the whole book is based on the description of cities that don't even exist. They are cities created in the minds and dreams of Khan and Marco Polo, as well as in Inception, where people control their dreams and confuse them with reality. This kind of confusion can also be seen in the book because the cities, despite the fact that they are completely fictional, seem very real to the characters and the audience as well. In my case, even though I knew the cities were just a product of their imagination, the descriptions were so precise and clear that they seemed real, especially to them.

            In the movie and the book, there is a very thin line between imagination (in dreams) and reality. In Inception, the characters sometimes don't know whether they are dreaming or not, since the feeling is so pure, strong, and real. The same thing happens in Invisible Cities to Marco Polo and Khan. For them, the cities are real, even though they are completely aware of the fact that they are just the product of their imagination. The thin line between reality and imagination can also be seen when Marco Polo says that the cities he was making up were actually Venice. This definitely took me by surprise because they were always talking about creating cities and imagining them, and to think that he was referring to Venice through these detailed descriptions of all these cities was completely unexpected.

            When the audience is informed that the cities were actually Venice, the thin line between reality and imagination can be seen significantly, just like in Inception, where it is seen throughout the whole movie. Even though both characters are aware that they are talking about Venice, they keep on describing more cities after that, as if it weren't allowed to describe Venice directly. Inception relates to this because of the way the characters react towards their dreams: Even though they know they confuse reality with their dreams, dreaming and the actual concept of building their dreams with their sub conscience is their natural way of living. They literally design their dreams, just like Kahn and Marco Polo design the cities the audience thinks are fictional until Marco Polo says its Venice.

     


   The ending was surprising, and I never would have figured it out on my own. However, as soon as I knew that the cities were a compilation of Venice, it all made sense. I liked how the author creates an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty through the different descriptions of every city, dialogue between the characters, and the description of imagination turning out to be reality.

The Circles of Hell (and Cities)

            As I kept reading, I found more ways to connect the book to other aspects different from society. One of these relationships I found was the city of Hypatia and the book Dante´s Inferno. Before, even though the descriptions of the different cities were percise, deep, and unique, I thought the way Hypatia was described or the way Hypathia was imagined by Marco Polo was different. It is even said that the city is different "because the change regards not words, but things" (pg. 47).

            I believe this because in this city it seems as if everything and everyone were divided by sections or being assigned to certain places. This differs from the other cities because first of all, the people of the cities were barely mentioned, and second of all, only the aspects the city had were told to the audience (skyscrapers, ports, buildings, and of course, the opinion of the narrator). In Hypatia, not only the physical aspects of the city are described but also the people, as well as what place of the city the people belong to. That is why I related it to Dante´s Inferno.

            In Dante´s Inferno, different souls belong in certain circles of hell depending on what they did. For example, the ones that committed suicide were in a different circle than the ones who were murdered or created suffering. In Hypatia, this is similar. "I walked among the hedges, sure I would discover young and beautiful ladies bathing; but at the bottom of the water, crabs were biting the eyes of the suicides, stones tied around their necks, their hair with seaweed" (pg.47). This is related to Dante´s Inferno because all the suicides are at one place, the hedges, being bitten by crabs, as if they were enduring the same punnishment in a certain way.

            "The central hall was barred by iron gratings: convicts with black chains on their feet were hauling up basalt blocks from a quarry that opened underground" (pg. 47). Again, the convicts, found guilty for crime, were all being punnished this way and were all at the same place, suffering equally just like the miserable souls of Dante´s Inferno. This can also be seen with the musicians of Hypatia, "...to be sought in the cementeries: the musicians hide in the tombs; from grave to grave flute trills, harp chords answer one another" (pg. 48).

            Not only are the city as well as the book similar to each other in the sense that "types" of people belong in the same place but also because these people are suffering or find themselves in tragic, nostalgic, and dark places.

There are Two Sides to Every Story... I Think

         



            At the beginning of the second section of the book, I noticed uncertainty and ambiguity. It starts off with Marco Polo and Khan still discussing Marco Polo´s unuseful voyages and descriptions."At this point Kublai Kahn interrupted him or imagined interrupting him, or Marco Polo imagined himself interrupted, with a question such as: You advance always with your head turned back? or is whar you see always behind you? or rather, does your journey take place only in the past?" (pg. 28).

       
             I believe there is uncertainty here because the current state or situation the characters are in is not completely described or reassured. This is so because its as if the author werent sure or completely clear in describing what was happening. For instance, by saying "...interrupted him or imagined interrupting him", what is happenine it is not clear. Did Khan interrupt him or not? This is questioned thanks to the use of the word "or" since it doesnt give a reassuring or percise image of the situation to the audience. This causes ambiguity since the situation is very vague but however it can be interpreted in more than one way.


       

Pause

            So far, the only thing I have been blogging about is the way the cities are described in the book and what they represent for me. However, I am now going to talk about the way the story changes in terms of narrator, time, and place.

            Towards the end of the first section of the book, Marco Polo is no longer describing cities. The story completely shifts to the situation in which Marco Polo is with the emperor Kublai Kahn. The narrator changes as well: now its not Marco polo talking in first person but instead its an omniscient narrator that talks in first person. I found it interesting how as soon as the situaton changed this way, it is ritten in italics, as if the narrator was making a parenthesis with the change of the situation.

            Not only does the situation, narrator, and timing changed but I also interpreted Khan as a way of criticism towards society and human nature. When Marco Polo reported back from his voyages, he didnt bring what the emperor was looking for. Khan was interested in gold, therefore power, and Marco Polo always came  from his voyages depicting cities as "the leap of a fish escaping the cormorant´s beak to fall into a net, , a naked man running throgh fire unscorched, and as a skull, its teeth green with mold, clenching a round, white pearl" (pg. 21).

             This made me wonder whether those descriptions or interpretations of the cities by Marco Polo will mean anything farther in the book, and I also ask myself why Calvino writes this part of the story as if it were a parenthesis, an interference, and a situation aside from what the book had previously been about.

             The fact that all Khan was looking for was gold and not these descriptions Marco Polo brought with thim relates to the behavior of many people in a society today. All we are interested is money and power, instead of other things that matter more. So I am asking myself, are those descriptions by Marco Polo going to be important later in the book? Do they mean something more?

Our Poor Society...

            As I read further in the book, I connected the way the different cities were described to what societies are today. In my opinion, the author reflects what society is (boring, repetitive, unfair, critical, etc) through the descriptions of what one sees in the cities.

            For instance, I found it interesting that in Despina it is contradicting how the camel driver sees and thinks of the ocean, the ports, steamboats and sails. On the other hand, the person that comes by boat thinks of tobacco leaves, fruit, wine, and wishes to be taken out of "the desert of the sea". By "being taken out of the desert of the sea" (pg. 17) I imagined emptiness, as if that vague yet clear description was reflecting how we are never satisfied, and how we always want something different from what we have.

            The city of Zirma gave me the impression that it reflected how repetitive society is as well as our daily lives. "The city is redundant: it repeats itself so that something will stick in the mind" (pg. 19) in my opinion is a way the author in a way describes society, as well as the cycle of repetition we live in. This is also reflected in the quote "Memory is redundant: it repeats signs so that the city can begin to exist" (pg. 19). For me Zirma is an interpretation of our selfish and boring society, since its routines never change, creating one single image and way of living.

            The way the narrator refers to religion in the city of Isaura caught my attention. He described the different forms of religion as a consequence, even though he never really explained why they were such a problem. "Consequently, two forms of religion exist in Isaura" (pg. 20). He only described the two religions, but did not explain the problems the different beliefs brought nor why they were a consequence. I believe that this reference to the consequences religion brought to Isaura was not explained because in a society religion will always bring out differences and problems amongst people. It is something we should get used to, now that we find ourselves submerged our selfishness and lack of respect human nature has become.

Lets Take a Journey

             This book has been very different from texts I've read in the past. Not only because the plot is extremely rare, but also because of the descriptions, narrator, and way of writing the author has. The narrator uses a different technique every time he will describe a new city.

             The narrator talks in first and second person. He continually interferes and gives his opinion, for instance when he states "the city says everything you must think" (pg 14) he states his opinion on the city of Tamara. One of the techniques he used that got my attention was the very long and very short sentences he used. For example when he describes Isidora, there are a lot of pauses , therefore the sentences are very short and it is very concise. On the other hand, right after describing Isidora and moving to Dorothea, the sentences are much longer, there are less pauses, and more description is provided.

            An aspect I found very ironic was when the narrator describes Zora. It gave me the impression that it was a satire towards society because he described it as "motionless and always the same, in order to be more easily remembered, Zora has languished, disintegrated, disappeared. The earth has forgotten her"(pg. 16). This called my attention because Zora had been described as a city that was impossible to forget, as if there were something special or odd about it. However, Zora was a very simple city and was similar to cities today. There were houses along the streets with doors and windows in the houses, but "nothing in them possesses a special beauty or rarity". So this made me wonder why would Zora be so unforgettable if it had nothing special? It made me think that the author was making fun of society.

             Descriptions also caught my attention. When the narrator was going to describe a city, he focused on one set of things rather than talking about the entire city. For example, this is seen in the very first city he describes, Diomira. "Diomira, a city with sixty 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" (pg. 7). I thought it was interesting how the narrator only used adjectives that described valuable or fancy things, for instance silver, bronze, lead, crystal, and golden. The fact that the narrator only described these beauties got my attention. This is so because he didn't focus on any other thing the city had to offer but only these precious and valuable aspects.

Another Happy Ending... Blah Blah Blah

            Candide's ending was definitely not what I expected it to be. I imagined a completely different story with completely different characters at the end. But the fact that characters are thought to be dead and then are suddenly alive is getting a little old by now. Now the Baron and Pangloss are alive too. Wait what? Yes, you read it well. Not only was I surprised but I also got to hate Candide by the end of the book.

            So these two have been alive all along and even though Candide saw them dead and even killed one of them he couldn't see what was right in front of him? I believe this is selfish and naive from his part because he just thought they were dead and left, running away from his problems while everyone else suffered. It really pisses me off how Candide always gets his way, no matter what. He always has a tendency of running away with the help of someone else and never gets caught for anything, but the other characters do have to pick up after him. He is superficial, selfish, immature, stupid, and a coward.

            It is also very absurd hoy Candide, after everything he has gone through, ends up happy with the people he wants to be. For example, he gets Pangloss, the one he missed so much and remembered everyday, the one he saw being hanged and dead. So while Pangloss was suffering, Candide was with his servants escaping his problems (for example when he killed the Baron) and managing the easy way out of everything. Seriously?

            Apart from all the negative qualities I just listed about Candide, he is superficial too. So it turns out he doesn't want to be with Cunégonde anymore because she has grown to be very ugly. I found this stupid, ironic, and in a way the author was mocking the situation and Candide because he was willing to be with Cunégonde just to contradict the Baron and prove that he won or whatever. "At the bottom of his heart, Candide had no wish of marrying Cunégonde,but the Baron's intransigence determined him to go through with the match" (p.138). This was clearly ironic and stupid of Candide because why would someone do something to hurt someone else if they are going to end up hurt too? It makes no sense at all! And in a way, the author is also mocking Candide because of his naiveness and self centered world, even though it seems as if he loved Cunégonde and would do anything for her. I think not.

            I also think it is very unfair how Candide, despite everything he has gone through, always gets his happy ending. At the beginning of the book, for example, Pangloss dies and then he is separated from Cunégonde, then finds out she was dead, which was devastating, and then she was suddenly alive, so here he got what he wanted. Then, he loses Cunégonde in buenos Ayres, and then meets her brother. Everything is going well until Candide kills him. So he was clearly in a lot of trouble, so he just put on his clothes, pretended to be the Baron, and left him there and escaped. Really Candide? Really? This proves his self centeredness, not to mention when he saw Cunégonde at the end that he didn't want to be with her anymore because of her looks. This demonstrates what a coward he was and how he had the ability of falling into his own lies.

            The ending was not only surprising but it also gave me a new perspective on the book and clearly the characters. It is endings like these which actually make me realize whether I liked the book or not, and in this case, I did (a lot) even though I am not reading it by option. I could also notice that by the reaction I had as I read, and how attached I got to the book.

So congratulations on your hundredth happy ending Candide! Im done now.

Spoiler Alert!!

           

            All my previous posts have been about satire, irony, comparisons, and events of the book. For a change, I will talk about what I haven't liked so far. The book is interesting, entertaining, and it certainly has very unexpected events, not to mention the constant satire. However, even though the book has a lot of pros, I will now talk about the cons.

            In many occasions, I have written about certain events of the book that I find astonishing, unexpected, important, or interesting. For instance, the story of the Old lady, the death and return of Lady Cunégonde, and the murdering of Cunégonde's brother as well as Candide's escape. Even though these are some of the many events that have left me breathless, there are certain things I don´t like. For instance how every chapter's sub tittle basically tells you what is going to happen in one sentence. Just like  Connor said in one of his blogs, tittles give it away. Of course, if you read the chapter you know much more detail including what happened before or after the event the tittle spoiled for you, but you know the mayor event of the chapter before reading it.

            As I commented in Connor's post, even though the chapters's sub tittles spoil the event, after reading the chapter there is always something else that is either important, interesting, or unexpected. You can also look at it this way: As soon as you start reading a chapter, you already know what will happen, but it really doesn't make much of a difference because all you have to read is a maximum of four or five pages. Also, by knowing what will happen in each chapter, the amount of extra details you get after reading it is not much because Voltaire's way of writing doesn't give away many detailed descriptions or detailed. The events are just clearly stated and easy to imagine.

Run Candide, Run!

            The way the author makes fun of the situation as well as the characters is present throughout the whole book. As I have stated in my previous blogs, he does this through satire, especially by using irony. In the next ten pages I read, I was very into the book because not only the irony caught my eye but also the situation. I wasn't expecting Candide to leave Lady Cunégonde and much less for him to kill her brother and leave.

            One part I thought was contradictory was when Candide was fighting with Cunégonde's brother because of his opposition to their love and marriage and Candide deaws his sword into The Baron´s stomach. When Candide cries "O God! What have I done! I have killed my old master, my friend, and my brother-in-law! I am the best-tempered man there ever was, yet I have already killed three men, and two of them were priests!" (pg. 67) I noticed the irony of the situation. He is complaining on how he is the best tempered man there has ever been, yet he has killed three people, and in this case, he did it accidentally. He didn't even want to do it, but he just stabbed the Baron, as a reflex. So does this really make him the "best-tempered man there ever was"? It is ironic because it is clear that he has changed as a person, and has done things he would never have done at the beginning of the book, but even though he isn't satisfied by his actions, he feels guilty and then avoids the problem in any way possible, no matter who else gets hurt, just as long as he ends up alive. 

         


             For example, as soon as his incident with Cunégonde's brother occurred, he got the dead man's clothes and hat and just left. Of course, he was trying to save his life, but if murdering Cunégonde's brother was so bad for him, be would have turned himself in wouldnt he? So he cant be feeling that bad can he? So I believe that the author is making fun of Candide´s thoughts and actions as if he were a poor miserable man who never knows whats infront of him. Why would he do something (in this case kill someone), feel bad, move on, do it two more times, feel bad again, say he is the best tempered man ever, and then just get away in order to save his life? Thats the way I saw this situation, and I think the author is making fun of how naive Candide is being, and how he is contradicting himself without even noticing. 

            So it is clear that Voltaire uses satire to contrast the comedy and the tragedy in the book. I noticed this when Candide is running away with Cacambo because of the death of Cunégonde's brother. As I said in the previous paragraph, Candide dressed up as the Colonel in order for people not to notice he was guilty for his death. After that, when he is escaping with Cacambo and Cacambo yells in spanish "Make way, make way for the reverend father Colonel!" (p. 68) I noted another one of the many ironic situations. I believe this because even though that for Candide and Cacambo this was a serious situation, and their lives were at risk if they got caught, I think it was very clever how they just left with no problem at all, even though they had been complaining about how they were going to act to confront the situation moments before.

             It is very common in the book how problems get solved so easily, and how the situations are described with such little detail yet they can be very intense, create a lot of suspense, and then they get solved, the setting changes, and another one of these situations awaits them. So even though it was tragic that Candide killed his future brother-in-law, it is funny how he is worried yet so calm and confused, not knowing what he will do next and always having someone get him out of his problems. But ironically, he is the only one that always ends up alive, and despite the fact that he loses just about every single companion he has had, he always finds another one instantly to who he always gets used to. He is devastated about their death, (for example Pangloss and the Anabaptist) yet doesn't really need them or miss them. 

"I Know How You Feel" "Do You?"

             The old woman's story reflected the imagery of the book, especially thanks to the detailed descriptions the author provides. However, there is irony and absurdity when the old lady says "I am the daughter of Pope Urban X..." (p.49) due to the fact that there has never existed a Pope Urban X, showing how discreet the author is. Despite the fact that the old lady had made it clear that her story was truly devastating, the way she started it made me realize how bad it was going to end. This is so because she began talking about how perfect her life used to be, and how flawless and beautiful she was, not to mention the prince she was going to marry. But all good things must come to an end right?

              The imagery transmitter to the audience at first is like a Utopia. She had no problems whatsoever, nothing to worry about, she was pretty, had a wealthy family, and was getting married, which was going to be one of the biggest events. She had nothing to worry about, therefore the reader imagines perfection in her life, but also senses how shortly that paradise of hers was going to last, and how bad it was going to end. She was sold many times and suffered as a slave with her mother. "I need not tell you what a hardship it was for a young princess and her mother to be carried to Morocco as slaves, and you can readily imagine what we had to suffer on board the pirate ship" (p. 51) This being said by the old lady, the reader imagines her suffering and how hard it must have been, even though she has not given any further information or detail on what she lived and saw. It is easy to see it coming that at the end of the day, she will wind up all by herself.

            One of the parts where imagery is strongly seen and the audience gets a sense of repugnance, sorrow and goosebumps is when she describes detail by detail the death of her mother, as if it had been yesterday. "In the end I saw my mother and all four italian ladies torn limb from limb, slashed, and massacred by the monsters that fought for them" (p. 52) Not only is the description extremely precise and graphic, but the tone of the old lady makes it sound even more real. It is a tone of sadness and disappointment as well as loneliness, after all, her mother was all she had left. You can easily see how destroyed she is, and you know what they say about time healing all wounds? That clearly isn't happening here, since she remembers it perfectly, showing her pain and devastation. Another thing that demonstrates how destroyed she is after telling her story, is when she says " I should never have spoken of my misfortunes if you had not provoked me a little..." (p. 57) shows the audience the sadness she feels when thinking about her past, as well as how it affected her so much, that she still (after all this time) cant get over it.

The way the author describes her past is crystal clear

            I would say that tone and imagery, (after satire) are what makes the audience connect to the book as well as feel it and its characters. The story of the old woman really made me feel how she was feeling, as if she were talking to me. But as unexpected as this book is, who knows if she will still be "with us" by the end?

Is She Back?

            What happened in the next ten pages of the book was very unexpected. So far, they have been the most interesting events. However, as I read, many questions came to my head. When the strange woman gave Candide shelter and food, the one he thought was the love of his life, when she says "It is not my hand you should kiss" (p. 38) I couldn't help but conclude that there was someone else waiting for him. Of course, Lady Cunégonde wasn't an option, after all, she had died at the beginning of the book. After this scene, I began asking myself who that woman was, ahd why was she so interested in helping Candide. What does she want from Candide? Does she want to earn his confidence in order to do something bad to him in the future? Why did she appear so out of the blue? And most importantly, who´s hand is Candide supposed to kiss?

            Of course, these questions got answered as I read more. Turns out that Lady Cunégonde was still alive! What I liked about Lady Cunégonde being back, was the thrill of knowing she hadn't died. I believe the author made it clear to the audience that she was dead in the first place in order for all these questions to pop into ones head, and be surprised by the new unexpected event. However, I found ironic how everyone important in Candide´s life dies so soon in the book. All the main characters (James, Pangloss, Lady Cunégonde) that are important in Candide's life die, or are thought to be dead in Lady Cunégonde´s case. So if these characters go through almost the same things Candide goes through, why does the author make them sound so important and then tells us they die? Does this mean that in the future more characters that will make a "difference" in the book´s ending and the character´s destiny will appear?

            However, the fact that Lady Cunégonde is back so fast makes me think that she will stay with Candide throughout the whole book and have an impact. This is so because I believe that her return has been one of the most important events in the book so far, and the author wouldn't have made her go and come back and made such a big deal out of it if it weren't important. Right?

            So what will finally happen with these two? Will they go through everything that awaits together or apart and then find themselves again? Will one of them eventually die? I love the fact that the book, even though I haven't even got through the middle of it yet, has me so intrigued. These questions that have popped into my head are what makes me want to keep going to find out what will happen next. And if it isn't obvious, the return of Lady Cunégonde has been one of the most sudden yet fascinating events that has happened so far, not to mention the death of Pangloss and James. So the only way to answer these questions is to keep on going, maybe in the next five pages they will be answered.

"Can this really be Cunégonde?" cried Candide "you are still alive then?" (p.39)

"Candide" in the Outside World: Connections?

         

              Finding a book that gets me reading without stopping is very hard for me, especially those books of old literature which are the ones that I hate the most. I thought this was going to happen with "Candide", but in fact, the complete opposite thing occurred. As I read, I could perfectly picture what was going on in my head, not to mention how interesting the book was. Since the beginning of the book, I could clearly notice  the four elements of satire: irony, hyperbole, target, and absurdity. The author´s tone creates a lot of sarcasm, so at times the reader does not know if he is talking seriously or sarcastically. 

             In my opinion, this book connects to "The Odyssey" by Homer. What made me realize this at first was the time period and the situation. Since they are both very old works, I connected them right away and noticed the following similarities: The main character leaves home, and suffers because the woman they love can´t be with them. In "The Odyssey", this happens with Ulysses, when he leaves Penelope, and in "Candide", this happens when Candide has to leave Lady Cunégone behind as well. Something else I found similar was the fact that as the book advanced, they seemed farther away from the woman they loved. In "The Odyssey", Penelope had tons of admirers and was slowly losing hope on meeting with Ulysses again, and in "Candide" Lady Cunégone dies of sickness. I found the imagery from both texts very similar, especially then these two main characters have to go through after they go home. But how does this make the imagery similar? The situations Ulysses and Candide go through in their journey are very ironic. For example, when Ulysses goes to Circe, and how she turned his men into pigs is very unrealistic, even though she is a witch. A situation from "Candide" I could connect to this was when the boat where Candide, James, Pangloss, and other men were in broke in two after suffering a mayor storm, and how  ironically they were on their feet in no time the only ones that survived (except for James, who fell and drowned), and ended up walking in a sea of dead people.

            The irony Voltaire uses is also one if the things that really caught my eye and found very interesting, because I had never had the chance to read a book with such diction and expressions. For example, when Pangloss is talking about Panquette and says "In her arms I taster the delights of Paradise, and they produced these hellish torments by which you see me devoured." (p.30). I found this very ironic and in a way contradictory because paradise is a timeless place, in which everything is positive, no harm is felt and nothing goes wrong. However, Pangloss feels this when he is with her, enjoying it, but it is ironic how he says it produced some "hellish torments", as if the pain of being with her were all that he wanted, yet it can´t be paradise because he suffered and she died, meaning that everything ended, so it was not timeless.

            From what I've read so far, I have really liked the book and it has helped me analyze texts at a higher level, not looking at the situations in the literal sense that they are written but to look beyond for a better understanding. I really like how there is a problem and it is solved right away, and a worse problem emerges. That is what makes the book a page turner and makes me interested in it.