"Seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of the inferno, are not inferno..."

Invisible Cities. Two words that are hard to make sense of when put together, even after reading 165 of a book with this title. Despite this, it is much clearer than it was a week ago, when I was only able to stare at the cover and wonder how cities could be invisible. In Invisible Cities, cities represent aspects of humans and life, as I said in my past blog and Yvette  stated in hers as well. If this is so, then the title would be something along the lines of "Invisible Aspects of Humans and Life" and this could possibly be what Calvino is trying to show. He might be trying to reveal the aspects that so many people aren't aware of or simply ignore.

I have yet to discover or decide if Calvino uses this book as a way of merely revealing different aspects, or of criticizing them as well. Is he referring to the cities as utopias or dystopias? In "Cities & Memory" he does portray citizens as people stuck in the past, ungrateful for what they have and unable to take advantage of the present. In "Cities & Desire" he does the same, except that instead of being too busy reminiscing, people are too busy longing for things they could have, or acquiring new things they will never appreciate.

Throughout his book Calvino also assesses religion, stereotyping, consumerism, and conflicts between people. I take it that he's criticizing all these, since the way he refers to them ins't a glorifying one. When writing about Chloe, for example, a city where nobody speak,s he says "If men and women began to live their ephemeral dreams, every phantom would become a person with whom to begin a story of pursuits, pretenses, misunderstandings, clashes, oppressions, and the carousel of fantasies would stop." (P. 52) I interpret this quote as a way to make fun of society, implying that by just opening our mouths to talk, we begin conflicts. I take this as a satirical way of saying everything would be much better if we just kept quiet, but then again it could be just me. Maybe this is not a dystopia and it's me interpreting it this way. Maybe he is praising it. Or maybe he is only portraying it and that's all.

"You reach a moment in life when, among the people you have known, the dead outnumber the living."

By now, I believe I am being able to understand Invisible Cities symbolically. However, there's no way of knowing whether what I'm doing is right or wrong. Calvino even says so himself in the dialogue between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan: "The connections between one element of the story and another were not always obvious to the emperor; the objects could ave various meanings..." (P. 38) So I have reached the conclusion that the reader's understanding of the book might be psychological, it reflects what might be going on in their head or what they think about a lot. I won't give something a meaning that I never think of in my life, I will give it something that I believe is important, something worth writing of. Because of this, readers won't have the exact same understanding of the book, everyone will get at least one thing different from the rest.

To me, each city symbolizes an aspect of humans and how they live. Aglaura, for example, is a city that represents rumors and stereotype because everybody says the same things about it even when they know it's not true. Eusapia, on the other hand, represents dependence on the past. There is upper Eusapia (with the living) and lower Eusapia (with the dead) and sometimes "there is no longer any way of knowing who is alive and who is dead" (P. 110) since the living will always mirror the dead. There are many other cities (Beersheba representing greed, Irene representing complexity of people, and Laudomia representing destiny), however the one I found to be a very important reflection of our own is Leonia. This is a city wholly based on consumerism. So they throw things away everyday to make space for even more. Calvino even says "...you begin to wonder if Leonia's true passion is really, as they say, the enjoyment of new and different things, and not instead, the joy of expelling, discarding, cleansing itself of a recurring property." (P. 115) This city seems similar to Anastasia (refer to blog titled "Falsehood is never in words, it is in things."). But not only to this city, though. Isn't it exactly what happens in our world today?

I find it incredible how this is a book open to analysis. There is no single meaning, Calvino allows the reader to interpret it as he desires, and is successful. Marco Polo is supposed to be speaking a different language from the one Kublai Khan does, and since Marco Polo is Calvino in Khan is us, then we are reading in a different language. When I first started reading I found this ridiculous. "He writes in English, we read in English, not much more to it," I thought. But I was wrong; there is so much to it. It's not the words that have a different meaning, it's the symbols. And because we don't know the "language" of symbols, we have to interpret them in any way we can and do our best to understand. It's very difficult, but I believe I might be finally getting this "new language", or so I hope.

"...Limpid and cold in the mirror"

Every book I recall reading has had a plot. I never imagined there could be a book that had no plot, but Invisible Cities demonstrates it's possible. This book has no plot whatsoever, it just describes cities by dividing them into different categories. He is able to concentrate on why every city belongs to the category it's in. However, there's no way that cities won't connect to others, since some categories are so similar. And so I noticed that more than once, categories merge.

In Isidora for example, although it is a city of memories, the man thinks about what he wants. It is the place where desires become memories. Similarly, Zoe is a city where "Thin Cities" merge with desires. There's no better way to put it than the way Calvino did: "Those [cities] that through the years and the changes continue to give their form to desires, and those in which desires either erase the city or are erased by it."(P. 35) In "Trading cities" Chloe is one where people never speak, only look into each other's eyes, thus connecting "Trading Cities" with "Cities and Eyes." Yet, the theme that is mentioned the most throughout the book is memory. It merges with signs  in Zirma, where it is explained that memory is merely a way to repeat signs so that the city can exist. Later in the book, Euphemia is described as a city where memories are traded, this way combining both of these themes of the book.

It is interesting how Calvino is able to describe everything as if you were there. For example, when describing Euphemia, a place where memories are traded, he tells mostly of what you'd hear if you went there. Then, when writing about Chloe, he describes mostly the people seen there, since nobody speaks, just watches. "A girl comes along, twirling a parasol on her shoulder, and twirling slightly also her rounded hips. A woman in black comes along, showing her full age, her eyes restless beneath her veil, her lips trembling." He never says who these people are, he just describes them physically, allowing the reader to judge on his own. It is through these descriptions that the reader acts as not only the audience, but also as a citizen of every city that is described throughout the book.

"Falsehood is never in words, it is in things."

"Cities and Desire." After reading these three words, I thought the cities in this category would be happy ones, unlike those in "Cities and Memory." I thought they'd be filled with what everyone wanted. But no, I was completely wrong.

In "Cities and Desire" people are not busy enjoying what they want and have, but instead, wishing for a lot more (which is similar to how they were in "Cities and Memory" where they were too busy thinking about what they used to have). This is especially evident in Fedora, where people spend their time at a museum looking at models of what their city could have been like. It is similar in Despina, where people arriving by ship would much rather have been in the desert the entire time, and people who came through the desert would much rather have come by boat. It is not only in this book that people want something different than what they have. It definitely happens in our society all the time. Isn't this what jealousy is?

However, it is not only what others have that we want. We just want more... all the time. "You believe you are enjoying Anastasia wholly when you are only it's slave," writes Calvino on page 12. How awful to be manipulated this way, right? But it's exactly what happens in our society today. We buy and buy, believing it's the key to happiness. It could even be considered as a kind of competition amongst people, to see who is able to purchase the most items. Some even consider the victor to be the most powerful. Yet, in reality, while we believe we are the winners, we are being manipulated. By buying, we have become the slaves of consumerism, and the real winners are the ones getting us to buy everything. And it's working really well. Most of us are too busy wishing for what we don't have, and just keep on buying thinking our desires can someday be fulfilled.

"Desires are already memories"

Reading a book is simple: you start on the first page and end with the last one. Not too hard, is it? However, the first thing I had to do with Invisible Cities was decide whether I should read it in order, from page one to 165, or in the order of the chapters' titles. I wanted something that would allow me to understand the book better. I was inclined to decide to read it in the order it was written in, but then decided against it. This way I would get a better idea of what each type of cities were like, and how they related. In the end I would connect them on my own.

And so I began with "Cities and Memory." Evidently, they are about memory. All five cities have one thing in common, and that is that in all of them memories prevent people from enjoying life. In Diomira, those who have already experienced something identical to the present, are too caught up thinking about how happy they were last time. In addition, those who haven't already experienced this, are jealous of those who have. Similarly, Zaira is a city based on only memories. "As this wave from memories flows in, the city soaks it up like a sponge and expands." (Page 10) It is a city in which everything has to do with the past; it basically is its past. Zora, another one of these cities, is so caught up in being a memory, it ends up being in the past instead f the present, and everyone forgets it.

In Maurilia, Calvino addresses cities in the past versus cities in the present. He criticizes how citizens idealize the past, and live wishing for a place they never knew. However, this place they long for was actually not how they picture it. Calvino proves it by saying "Admitting that the magnificence and prosperity of the metropolis Maurilia, when compare to the old, provincial Maurilia, cannot compensate for a certain lost grace, which, however, can be appreciated only now in the old post cards, whereas before, when that provincial Maurilia was before one's eyes, one saw absolutely nothing graceful and would see it even less today, if Maurilia had remained unchanged." (Page 30) With "postcards" Calvino is probably referring to the elders. They usually talk about the "olden days," which they believe were much better. However, they are probably glorifying the past without even realizing by just showing the good things, just like postcards do.

Isidora is a very similar place. A man spends a lot of time in the "wild regions," which most likely stand for the young years of his life, and then comes to this city. It has spiral staircases with spiral seashells, which symbolize the cycle of life, strengthening the aspect of aging. This city is everything the old man has ever wanted. Well, it's everything he's wished for, except that now he's old. So what does he do instead of enjoying everything? He sits and watches the young go by, making his life a memory instead of a reality.

With these five cities, Calvino is portraying nostalgia and aging. He criticizes how people are too caught up thinking about what other have and about that their past, that they forget to enjoy what they have right then. And it's absolutely true. Little kids spend their youth pretending they're adults and wishing to be as big as their parents. Yet, once we've grown up, we spend a lot of time reminiscing the past. So we never take full advantage and value what we have right now, we're to busy being melancholic about the past and (even though Calvino hasn't mentioned this) worried about the future.

"Blind faith can justify anything."

Technology has become increasingly important in our society throughout the years. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins demonstrates his open-mindedness by saying that technology and other cultural aspects like religion, fashion, architecture, art, etc. can be considered to evolve. Again, a pattern in this book appears: How mistakes make something new. Dawkins explains that it is only through mistakes that new "memes" (see below for definition) are created. For example, in birds, when a tune is misconstructed, a new one is created.

Another pattern is also portrayed once again: Competition. He in a way implies that the only way for a meme to survive is through survival of the fittest. In other words, it must get rid of competition - or at least minimize it - in order to become popular and prevail through generations. For example, if a religion is to last, it must reduce the amount of people who believe in others. It could be said, that different religions are rivals of each other,  and so are different styles of architecture, different types of art, etc.

I'm not the only one who decides to use the example of definition, though. Dawkins does as well, and it seems like he criticizes it at every chance he gets. Out of all the examples he could use - fashion, art, music, architecture, technology - the one he uses the most is religion. And not to boast about it, or even favor it in any way. It could be even be said that he mocks it. He portrays God as something that would die out easily if it weren't for popular belief in him (which could be said to be true, but still adds to his criticism) when he says "God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or ineffective power, in the environment provided by human culture." (P. 193) Not only is he attacking religion but also presenting God merely as man's fictitious creation.

It doesn't stop here, though. Afterwards, to show how memes help each other to propagate themselves, he doesn't use inventions or anything of the sort; he uses religion again. He uses one of the church's most criticized aspects: How it utilizes fear to control the people. Then he explains that the idea of hell and the "God meme" help each other prevail. He describes this technique as "nasty", and then considers whether it could have been a psychological technique arranged by priests, but then decides they couldn't be "that clever."

He does this one last time. He uses the example of celibacy and describes a priest trying to convince young kids to follow this idea. However, he  doesn't just say children, but a"young boys who have not yet decided what they want to with their lives." (P. 198) This implies that the children are still very young and maybe even quite naïve, leading the reader to agree that the priest is manipulating the children since they don't know much about what everything is like. They would probably come to regret their decision later, but the priest has earned followers for the celibacy meme, and that is what every meme wants: More followers than the rest.

Vocabulary

Cultural mutations (P. 190): The rearrangement of a cultural aspect.

Meme (P. 192): A replicator of human culture.

Psychological appeal (P. 193): Appeal to brains.

Imitation (P. 194): "How memes can replicate." (P. 194)

Idea-meme (P. 196): "An entity that is capable of being transmitted from one brain to another." (P. 196)

“You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours.”

For a long time, humans have observed that animals live in groups: Wolfs in packs, fish in schools, birds in flocks, etc. However, I used to believe they did this just for the sake of it, or even simply to have company (as naïve as that may sound). However, Dawkins explain that animals do not live in groups just because, there is a whole bigger reason, and this can be traced to nothing else but selfishness. When they are surrounded by many of the same species, animals are less likely to be eaten, thus allowing them to propagate their own genes.

Although Dawkins avoids using human beings as models, his own examples clearly demonstrate that humans are no exceptions. True, I do not hang out friends to make sure they protect me from harm, and this is probably because society has managed to protect us and removed many of or primitive habits. But still, it hasn’t eliminated our instincts and there are both subconscious and conscious things that humans do, that can be traced back to selfishness.

For example, most people I know dislike being left to sit on the corner in places like the cinema. I had never asked myself why, but this is probably due to an instinctive feeling of vulnerability we dot give much thought to.  Perhaps this makes us feel more prone to danger without even realizing. Similarly, a friend once told me that many people subconsciously sit facing the door because their instincts want them to be on the look out, and this certainly applies to Dawkins theory. If they had their back to the door, any threat could approach without them noticing, so their primordial instincts lead them directly to a seat facing the door (I’m not saying it applies to all cases, but it does apply to many).

Just like there are ways in which we subconsciously want people around us to protect us, there are also ways that we are fully aware of. For example, people feel safer when walking on the street when another person is with them. However, many have probably not stopped to think that if they were attacked in any way, let’s say mugged, their companion would have no way of protecting them. It’s almost as if they were alone, yet we feel safer with someone by our side. Maybe deep, deep down, very subconsciously, we are hoping that they’ll be attacked instead of us, just like animals do…?

There are also bodyguards, who are hired to protect a person who is more prone to danger. However, these bodyguards are also selfish and won’t do it just for the sake of it. In exchange for protecting a person, they receive money, which Dawkins acknowledges as a “formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism.” (Page 188) So even though many people believe we are the exception to animal savagery and primordial instinctiveness, we are not. We might even be more similar to animals than we initially though.

Vocabulary

Reciprocal altruism (P. 166): Doing a favor to another, expecting to later benefit from this.

Selfish herd (P. 167):  A herd of selfish individuals

Cave Theory (P. 169): The theory that an animal of a certain species warns others about a danger for the purely selfish reason of avoiding others from catching the predator’s eye.

Never Break Ranks Theory (P. 169): The theory that an animal warns others of the same species about a danger to avoid being left as the only one and thus losing the advantage of living in a group.

Symbiosis (P. 181): Also known as mutualism, this is the “relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species.”

Sucker (P. 184): An animal that helps another even if the other won’t help in return, “indiscriminate altruists.”

Cheat (P. 184): “Gain benefits without paying the costs.”

Grudger (P. 185): Only help those who help them in return.

Evolutionary Stable Strategy (P. 185): A strategy that is prone to defeat others and evolve.  

"DNA works in mysterious ways."

Humans have been on earth for million of years, and still we don’t even know half of the animals and plants we share our planet with; yet, we think we do. It is nearly impossible to know every single species, as (as Dawkins says) there are around three million different types of insects alone. And still we continue to believe we know everything, and we have the power over the world. But we don’t, and Dawkins proves this by saying that every species depends on the others; like trees depend on monkeys and water depends on fish.

Dawkins also explains how chromosomes work. In the past, teachers have tried explaining this to me and I’ve barely understood a thing. However, Dawkins, with an allegory, was able to make me understand easily for the first time. He compares the human body to a building, each cell to a room, the nucleus to bookcases, chromosomes to 46 volumes of books, and genes to pages. He then proceeds to explain by using this allegory and once the reader understands, he simply uses the real terms. Surprisingly, with no need for questions, everything was clear for once and for all.

“Acquired characteristics are no inherited,” says Dawkins (Page 23), and I completely agree. People sometimes think a boy is good at soccer because he inherited it from his father, or that another is good at math because he inherited it from his mother. But I disagree. Things like math and soccer, although they have been present for a long time, were initially created by man, so genes cannot carry information for these. However, by living in an environment were these are practiced and by one practicing these as well, one can develop the skills necessary. This is the inherited vs. acquired debate comes in, but I believe skills are acquired; so it doesn’t depend only depend on who your parents are, but where you live.

"Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines."

For years we have been taught science. What chemicals are, what they're made up of, the periodic table, evolution, etc. This bring up the debate of science vs. religion. Some say it was God who created the universe, while others ridiculize this idea and say it was nothing greater than a new mixture of molecules. Truthfully, I believe we'll never know, because we weren't there and nobody will be able to come back from the dead and confirm whether God exists or not. So we'll just keep doubting, never knowing what is actually true. With such a scientific book, it is evident that Dawkins supports the scientific theory over the religious one. This is specially obvious when he discusses errors made in history and chooses out of all examples to say "I suppose the scholars of the Septuagint could at least be said to have started something big when they mistranslated the Hebrew word for 'young woman' into the Greek word for 'virgin', coming up with the prophecy: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son...'" (p.16) By doing so, he is attacking religion in a way which could be called subtle, as he can simply deny it when he is criticized and say it was an incorrect inference made by the reader.

Never had I realized that everything we know - all humans, other animals, and plants - came from the same molecule. Never until now, that is; thanks to The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins explains that we were created by accident, since the replicator molecule wasn't even meant to be formed. But it was. And so it began replicating until errors in replication caused the existence of hundreds of different replicas. This is what allowed animals and plants to be created. Before, there was only one type of molecule. But now since there were tons of different ones, it became a competition: survival of the fittest.

Never before had replicas had to fight to survive. However, with the newly-formed diversity, they were forced to create various new defense devices to outsmart others, and survive. This is the reason why they created what today is known as the cell wall, which in the end allowed life to appear on earth, and created us, their "survival machines."

Passive Voice Exercise II

8. If expansion is not accomplished, then two less-efficient alternatives must be acted upon: either the book sales will have to be in separate quarters or else the whole enterprise will have to be moved to a new location. [Try "we."]
9. Trees on average sites are expected to be about twenty inches in diameter when they are eighty years old if they are managed properly since youth. [Start "Managed properly."]
10. Any amended declaration should be filed with the Internal Revenue Office with whom the original declaration was filed   even if you move to another district.


8. We will have to choose between selling the books in separate quarters or moving the store to a new location, if we can't expand the shop.
9. Managed properly, eighty year old trees grow twenty inches in diameter. 
10. The Internal Revenue Office must file any amended declaration, even if you move to another district. 

Passive Voice

1.      Children cannot open these bottles easily.

The bottles cannot be easily opened by children.

2.      The government built a road right outside her front door.

A road was built right outside her front door by the government.

3.      Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.

The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.

4.      When she arrived, the changes amazed her.

She was amazed by the changes when she arrived.

5.      The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.

Street repairs are being made by construction workers all month long.

6.      The party will celebrate his retirement.

His retirement will be celebrated at the party.

7.      His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him.

His oral exam was being discussed by his professors, right in front of him.

8.      My son ate all the homemade cookies.

All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.

9.      Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.

The hull of the ship was damaged by corrosion.

10.   Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.

The old homestead was visited by some children.

"Will you kindly tell us why such a strange animal as man was ever made?"

Candide is a book different from any other I have ever read. As I went further into the story, I tried looking for works it reminded me of. Yet, I found none. This is of no surprise, though. Never before had I read a satirical piece. I didn't even know what satire was until a few weeks ago. So it is undeniable that satire is what makes this work different from any other.

In Candide the reader is not meant to identify with the characters or even wish that they succeed. On the contrary, I was constantly looking forward to Candide's failures and to being able to make fun of all the characters. It usually bothers me when I can't really relate to the characters, but in this case, it thrilled me. I loved it when Candide killed the two monkeys and these happened to be the two ladies' lovers,  I was excited for Pangloss's death, and I was delighted after reading that Cunégonde had become ugly. I guess the irony of it all made me happy.

In addition, I found that what I wanted most was to have Candide discover that Pangloss was in fact wrong: We do not live in the "best of all possible worlds", as Pangloss never failed to remind him. It was for this reason that the only character I really liked was Martin. Martin constantly disagreed with Pangloss's teachings and ideas. Many would believe he was pessimistic, but I just think he was realistic.  Everyone in this story was too optimistic, and Martin was the only one who was able to see what everything was really like. Too bad this makes him seem as the pessimistic character in Candide.

Voltaire maintains a constant battle between optimism and pessimism. Pangloss always says everything is for the best. He even develops an explanation as to why getting syphilis was not a curse, but a blessing. Since without it, America would not exist, and therefore, there'd be no chocolate. On the other hand, when Candide asks Martin why the Earth was formed, he answers "To drive us mad." So is this the best of all possible worlds or are we just here to fight the constant injustices and learn to survive? Well, I guess that is up to each one of us to decide.

"'What is optimism?' asked Cacambo. 'It's the for maintaining all is right when all goes wrong with us.'"

Optimism. Something not everybody has. Something people wish to acquire, but still annoys many. Something Pangloss had. He used to say everything is for the best and that we "live in the best of all possible worlds." But is this really so? Is there no place that could be better than the one we live in?

It is true: we are living in a world quite different from the one Voltaire was referring to. But we still keep all those aspects he so strongly disapproved of. We have religions, lack of free will (even though supposedly do have it). and wars all the time. But he must've know that it would always be the same.  This is evident when Candide asks "Do you think, that men have always massacred each other, as the do to-day, that they have always been weak, inconstant, mean-spirited, envious, greedy, drunken, miserly, ambitious, bloody, slanderous, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical, and stupid?" And Martin only answers: "Do you think, that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could find them?" (Page 96) So it is obvious that Voltaire believes that all these bad characteristics of humans, are simply in their nature. There's just no way to change it.

There are better places to live in. If this is the best of possible worlds, what would the worst be like? We have people living in squalor, we have orphans living on the streets, we have children working and fighting to survive in awful places. So what a great place it is for everybody! It is true, this is the best of all possible worlds for me. I have nothing to complain about, and basically everything I could ever want and few will ever have. But it is not just me in this world. It's almost seven billion people, of which more than 50% have a difficult life in which each day is another fight for survival.

"The prodigious superiority of its materials over the sand and pebbles which we call gold and precious stones was clearly manifest."

“The door was mere silver, and the rooms were paneled with nothing better than gold; but the workmanship was in such good taste as to vie with the richest paneling. It is true that the hall was incrusted only with rubies and emeralds, but everything was so well designed as to compensate for this extreme simplicity.”

            For the inhabitants of Eldorado this was a very simple understated household. As one of the countrymen said when referring to the rubies and emeralds, “[those are] the pebbles and dirt found in our soil.” To them this kind of ornament wasn’t only common, but also insignificant. Yet, for Candide and Cacambo it was lavish and extravagant. When they first came across these precious stones they, “had the curiosity to pick some up, and found that they were gold nuggets, emeralds, and rubies, the least of which would have been the grandest ornament in the Mogul throne.” In short, they both thought the riches were “fit for kings”.

            In our society we would agree with Candide and Cacambo. The emeralds, rubies, gold, and silver were magnificent materials to come upon. However, the reason is that we have been brought up believing so. The value of these riches weren’t assigned by nature, instead they were appointed by society. If we had been educated in Eldorado, we would side with them in thinking that the gemstones were common everyday objects with no value. Yet, since we have been raised in a different environment, we end up coinciding with the views of Candide and his servant.

            One of the inhabitants also says, “We have been sheltered from the greed of European nations, who have a quite irrational lust for the pebbles and dirt found in our soil, and would kill every man of us to get hold of them.” This, unfortunately, is very true. They would most definitely commence a brutal blood bath against each other in order to gain control of the riches, which in Eldorado were trivial to say the least. The most ironic thing of it all, is that they created the value of these items and therefore also the desire for them. Truth is, society has always given everything it’s meaning, and we have blindly accepted and followed these set standards. 

"In fact, the laws of nature teach us to kill our fellow-creatures, and that is what happens in every corner of the earth."

War has been present since the beginnings of time. We know of wars as old as those in ancient Greece, and as recent as those occurring today like the Palestine-Israeli Conflict. So it should come as no surprise that there are so many wars in Candide. Yet, I was shocked at the amount of conflict there is in this book over such minor disagreements.

Candide starts off with various conflicts and wars. First Candide is banished for kissing Cunégonde, then he finds himself in the middle of war, and then the reader finds out that Cunégonde's and the old woman's stories both revolve around conflicts. I thought war would stop at one point, but so far, it hasn't. Now Candide has traveled to the New World, a place people believed was the ultimate sanctuary and safe-haven. Turns out, Voltaire wasn't one of these people. Once Candide arrives, he finds out the police want him for murder, and then he kills a Jesuit Priest. This is not unexpected, since Voltaire has been criticizing European society all along. However, further ahead in the story, an indian tribe wants to eat Candide and his servant because they believe they're Jesuits. So apparently, Europeans aren't the only ones who fight because of idealistic disagreements.

So it is evident that Voltaire believed it wasn't only people in his society who fought over anything, it was people everywhere. So he must have believed that it wasn't society that corrupted the individual, but that the individual was simply born corrupted. Throughout the book Voltaire demonstrates  how discontent he is with European society, and now he criticizes American cultures as well. It is eminently obvious in this satirical quote referring to the cannibal tribe: "'What grand people they are! What fine fellows! And what culture!... When all is said and done, there is a sterling goodness in unsophisticated Nature.'"So Voltaire disapproves of European society. And he disapproves of American society as well. Then is there anything he is content with?

"A few days later they decided to eat the women."

Can you imagine what it would be like to go from the life of your dreams to an absolute nightmare? Well, this is what happens to Cunégonde's waiting-woman. She was born a pope's daughter and lived in an immense castle. She married the man of her dreams, the one she loved "to the point of idolatry." However, this man died two hours after the wedding. So the now-widowed bride, left with her mom to mourn him in Gaeta, but her ship was attacked by pirates. Her life became a total wreck then.

I find it unbelievable how Voltaire takes any chance he can to criticize either the Church or the Aristocracy. Aren't popes forbidden from having sexual relationships? But this one apparently couldn't help himself and had a child. Way to maintain the Church's sincerity and stick to his vows. In addition, Voltaire makes fun of nobles by giving Buenos Aires's most important nobleman a long name and then saying he "had a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many names." The sarcasm is evident, and so is his hate towards these people in society.

Not only does he use satire to criticize society's elite, but also to show that women are treated as objects. First, the woman, her mother, and their servants are all raped while traveling to Gaeta. It is not outright said that they were raped, though. Voltaire just says that these men "put their fingers into a place where we women normally admit nothing but a syringe-tube," and leaves the interpretation to the reader. In addition, once they reach Morocco, men begin to fight for the women and end up dismembering them. Nice way to choose a winner, I must say. The woman is the only one left alive, and wakes up to a man trying to rape her. (Can't these men control themselves? It's one rape after another!) Nevertheless, they become friends and both the woman and the reader begin to trust this man. But as soon as one does, he sells the woman. So apparently, not even the nicest man can treat a woman like an actual person. Then, the woman is moved to Azov, which is sieged. So then the soldiers try to eat the women in the fortress. Fortunately, a "pious and compassionate"priest convinces them to "cut just one buttock of each of these ladies." It's truly nice of him, isn't it? Again, Voltaire is using irony to prove his point.

Although this woman has gone through terrible occurrences, she refuses to pity herself, something I truly admire. Most people, as it is even shown in the book, think their lives are awful and that they are great beings for upholding all this suffering. I must say, Im no exception and neither are most of the people I know. It is true, some people are more dramatic about it than others, but still everybody has thought at some point or another that their life is full of problems. So I do look up to the woman and how she is at no point seeking to have anybody say "Oh! You're so brave! You've been through so much!", but just believes these stories will reduce boredom. Maybe it's something we should all start doing: Stop self-pity. Pity solves nothing, so we might as well do anything else instead.

"'If this is the best of all possible worlds... what can the rest be like?'"

I've heard people go against the Church millions of time. Some say it's all a fake, others say it only seeks power and control. However, I have never heard someone so biased against the church as Voltaire. His opinions must have been clear to anybody who heard him during the enlightenment era, and they are evident to anybody today who reads Candide.


Candide is a huge criticism towards the Catholic religion. Not towards the beliefs, but towards the people's hypocrisy. He tells of how a Cunégonde belonged to Don Issachar, a Jew, but then an Inquisitor wished to own her as well. Seeing as Don Issachar would not let him have her, he threatened to burn him alive. By doing so, the Grand Inquisitor is taking advantage of his power and using it for is benefit in things that are not even religion-related. In addition, when the Inquisitor and Don Issachar are murdered by Candide, the Catholic man is buried in a "beautiful church", while the Jew is "thrown in a dunghill." To further strengthen Voltaire's arguments, Caunégonde has her jewels stolen. But not by a poor man, seeking anything that will help him prevail. On the contrary, the thief turns out to be a reverend friar. Aren't friars supposed to have vowed to poverty? So, since when does stealing jewels comply with this bow? This, is a perfect example of the Church's hypocrisy.

One would expect Voltaire to prove his point with simple examples nobody would be able to miss. However, he uses satire instead. There is not a single time when he has a character say something like "See? That's how hypocritical the Church is," or anything of the sort. Instead, he leaves it to the audience to see it in whatever way they desire. Yet, for some fortunate reason, most readers will analyze these example in the exact way Voltaire wants them to.

At the beginning of the story, Pangloss's teachings are portrayed as exemplary ones, far from being wrong. However, as the story develops, Candide begins to doubt these teachings. In his opinion, they are way too optimistic. Everything is not for the best and this is not the "best of possible worlds". It is strange how it is evident that Voltaire was against Pangloss's teachings since the start. Yet he chooses to show how his characters stop trusting these, instead of having them go against these teachings since the beginning. I believe he does this to have the reader go through the same change of opinion as the characters, rather than having him doubt the characters and go against their disagreements with Panglos.  This technique reminds me of a movie called Inception. In this movie, the characters fake an opinion and then slowly change it, in order to have another character slowly do so as well. Whether Voltaire did this on purpose or accidentally, this is a genius technique an might have helped him gain even more support.

"It was useless to declare his belief in free will and say he wanted neither"

What is "free will"? A punishment for getting us into hard situations and dilemmas? Or a gift for allowing us to choose what we want? It is hard sometimes to decide what it is that we want. Sometimes I'd even like somebody to makeup my mind for it, but I would never address free will as a punishment. And neither would Voltaire. Voltaire actually uses Candide, a satirical piece, to show his thoughts on society, especially free will. He verbally fought in the French Revolution, and this work was most probably one of his means to present his ideas to the public.

"'Your Excellency must excuse me... Free Will is consistent with Absolute Necessity, for it was ordained the we should be free,'" writes Voltaire on the fifth chapter of his book. By doing so, he is trying to convince the reader that free will is a basic right for everybody. During that time, people just did what the church and the monarchs wanted them to... anyone who went against them would be punished. Awful, right? But they were used to it, just like we're used to many of today's injustices. Yet, Voltaire chose to take a stand and show that there was another way. Something called "free will". He doesn't just put it as something that would be nice for  people. He chooses to portray it as something everybody needs, this way increasing potential support.

Voltaire not only shows his support for free will in direct way. In fact, he mostly uses satire to prove his points. There's a point in the story where the authorities kill a man for marrying his godmother, two Portuguese Jews for refusing to eat bacon, and Panglos and Candide are arrested for speaking and "listening intently." With this situation Voltaire criticizes the government and the lack of free will it allows. Of course it's an exaggeration, and this most likely did not happen back then. But it was a way to make the reader stop and maybe say "Wait a minute. This kind of does sound like the society I live in. There's so many things I'm not allowed to do." With this novel, Voltaire proved that the only way to gain supporters was not through speeches. He was able to create an entertaining piece while still fighting for his cause and gaining support.

SOPA OP-ED Video