George Orwell, "Politics And The English Language"

1. What is Orwell's argument?

The english language is slowly decaying due to the bad writing habits and imitation of these. We need to focus more on the meaning of what we want to write so the words we choose express it clearly.We cannot change the style of some of the writings, but we can change the bad habits with which we write.

2. Identify two cases of irony:

In operators or verbal false limbs there is irony shown at the end of the argument when he end it with " so on and so forth", instead of writing simple conjunctions or prepositions he writes end it with a phrase that must be avoided.

When he uses similes or metaphors without conveying the right image in the reader after saying a writer must avoid it. "When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink"(Orwell). The cuttle fish does not create the correct image the writer would want to express.

3. Define:

Dying metaphor: Worn out metaphors which have lost their meaning and they save people the trouble from being original. 

Pretentious diction: Words, usually foreign ones, that dress up simple statements, they use them instead of using a correct english word that can best describe what the writer wants to express. 

Meaningless words: Words that lack their true meaning because they are interpreted by everyone differently and no one really knows the truth of it.

Ten steps:

-Ask yourself the following questions when writing: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image it idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

-Try to reflect in your writing what you want to express in the simplest way possible.

-Be original, don't use cliches. 

-Never use the passive if you can use active voice.

-Never use pretentious words if you can think of an English word that is simpler and means the same.

-Never use something that has already been seen in print before.

-Avoid wordiness or words that don't contribute with what you want to express.

-It is not a matter of length but of quality.

-Don't try to sound smart by adding words or phrases just write what you want to express.

-"Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous"(Orwell).

History Through Whitman

Today in class I made a historical mistake. I thought that in the 1900 centuary the oriental mind had not yet influenced the american mentality. I was confused because I was taught in hisghschool that the modern age started in the 20th century but I omitted that there had to be other progess before to create the change. It was in that time, specially in the US where a new mentality rose, and also it was a modern nation were, as we read in class, there was a mixture of many nationalities.

 What I do have clear in my head is that in that time there was still slavery and it is clearly depicted in poem 13 when Whitman writes:
"The negro holds firmly the reins of his four horses—the block swags underneath on its tied-over chain"(217). The tied over chain makes it obvious for us to understand the historical period of slavery in which the poem was written. It also creat mamicies because when he wrties "the block swags underneath on its tied over chain-" the dash creates the feeling of the chain and how the words are all imprisoned in them.
His poems give us an insight of the time he was going through, the historical time was an inspiration to Whitman´s writing.

Innovation

In Whitman´s 1-10 poems I noticed that his style could have been an inovation to poetry. He created a new style which was not the typical Iambic Pentameter form, rather it included a prose like form. He also included some topics that might not been as common in that time. In poem 3 when he writes:
"Out of the dimness opposite equals advance—always substance and increase, always sex;
Always a knit of identity—always distinction—always a breed of life"(38-39).
Not many poets refer to sec as he did, barely they referred to it. His topics are quite unusual and reflect the period of change that lead to modern times. I really can not imagine a poet talking about sex in that time, although the mid 1800 centuries was a period of progress for the US, it is not as if we see that time as opened minded to sex as we are now.

His style is innovative and opens ways to a different way of poetry.

The Recipe

In the last two chapter of a simple soul I realized the importance of each word in Flaubert's descriptions. At first I thought of them as wordy, but how con fiction be wordy? It can't be because every author has his own style to interpret his writing. In the case of Flaubert it is to make every word useful for his characterization, narration and description.

When he writes: "when she exhaled her last breath, she thought she saw in

the half-opened heavens a gigantic parrot hovering above her head." Every word creates the coherence of the sentence. If we were to take out the word gigantic, the readers perception of the scene would not be the same. Instead of imagining Loulou as the holy ghost showing the importance Felicite had for him, we would just see another bird that came near her shoulder after her death.

 It is like a cookie recipe. If you add all the ingredients the recipe will come out just fine, and it will be much enjoyable because it is the product of the exact recipe. But if you miss one ingredient the cookies will come out but not as delicious. Just as words, if you take one of Flaubert's words his sentences would not be as descriptive enough to depict the meaning of the story and of its characters.

Through Action

Flaubert's style in chapter I-III is based on a description through the plot of the story. He introduces his description through various ways, most of them are in movement, he writes: "then, when dinner was over, the dishes
cleared away and the door securely locked, she would bury the log
under the ashes and fall asleep in front of the hearth with a rosary
in her hand"(a simple soul).

At the beginning of the story we meet with more pauses, that lead us to a sudden description, not much hidden through the action set on the story, for example when he writes: "then she left her house in Saint-Melaine,

and moved into a less pretentious one which had belonged to her
ancestors and stood back of the market-place. This house, with its
slate-covered roof, was built between a passage-way and a narrow
street that led to the river" (A Simple Soul). Here we can see the pause Flaubert used to start describing the house, the period. Before he was talking about the action but in order to create the approach to reality he uses the pause.

But he focuses more on describing through the action, just as in Sauls Bellow's Seize The Day. When writes: "Every Monday morning, the dealer in second-hand goods, who lived under

the alley-way, spread out his wares on the sidewalk. Then the city
would be filled with a buzzing of voices in which the neighing of
horses, the bleating of lambs, the grunting of pigs, could be
distinguished, mingled with the sharp sound of wheels on the cobble-
stones"(A Simple Soul). The srtucture he gives here is quite interesting, because once he uses a lot of words it creates the feeling of a crowded market, looking at it in a literal level.

The way Flaubert describes here is more through the action, this makes the reader realate more to reality because that is the way in which we feel and see things, not through sudden stops, but through actions that lead us to the description.

Watch this video:

The balloons can only be described through the movement or action they are given, just as Flaubert does, the action makes the description more appealing and possible.

Confessions Of A Sentence

I am not much of a writer, specially in english. Most of my vocabulary is in spanish, and I am capable of making "words in the sentence are all vibrating and destabilizing themselves: no longer solid and immutable, they start to flutter this way and that in playful receptivity"(The Sentence Is A Lonely Place). At least that is what my old spanish teacher told me. But when it comes to English, "Words seemed to be intruders, blown into the rooms from otherwhere through the speakers of the television set or the radio"(The Sentence Is A Lonely Place). Perhaps it is because it is not my native language, or maybe I just don't feel comfortable writing in English because it limits my thoughts. I don't have enough vocabulary to fulfill all the expectations that my mind has for that piece of paper that will soon be read by someone. When Lutz wrote: "when we had to write, I could never call up any of the brassy and racketing words I had read" (The Sentence Is A Lonely Place)", I immediately had a flashback to the past weeks when I was writing my essay. I had some words in mind from previous books I read but they just disappeared once I started writing. Isn't it unfair? I just wish sometimes I was an English Dictionary I would avoid all this trouble.

But life is not as easy we have to learn to become good writers, and that is the purpose for this essay we are reading. Maybe it is not about knowing all the words but knowing how to work with them how to "make sure that the stressed syllables in a sentence outnumber the unstressed syllables. The fewer unstressed syllables there are, the more sonic impact the sentence will have"(The Sentence Is A Lonely Place).

Inconclusive

It came to an end, but can we really define it as an end? It was an inconclusive ending, The Tristero mystery ends up with no solution, and the novel ends before the reader could see what happens with the bidder who can help Oedipa unravel the mystery. Pychon does not give us time to wrap it all in. What we know is that Oedipa, trying to solve a mystery losses everything she once loved. She lost her husband to drugs, Dr. Hilarious to craziness, and Driblette committed suicide, and Metzeger ran away with a 15 year old, she says: "they are stripping away one by one, my men"(126). Her life has no meaning now and meaning the mystery does not have it either. She turned her life to "WASTE" trying to find something that may have just been a joke by Inveraty.

Most of the characters end up lost just as her quest. An example of her loss is how Mucho has been influenced by the LSD making him be lost in his own world, he said: "my dreams have changed (118)." and Oedipa is not a part of them anymore. The distortion of the world is the distortion of Oedipa to him.

I think that comes to the end of it, just as she lost her time and lost everything, in a way we lost it to. We tried to find the satirical meaning of the book to what purpose? There will still be things that we don't get and that we will never get.

The Inside Joke

It is hard to keep up with this book because first of all we didn't live in that time second  you need to have a lot of background historical information to keep up with it. And third it is not our culture! It is like an inside joke, you get it once they explain it to you but otherwise it's hard to get. Imagine an American watching Jaime Garzón, it is the same comparison.

But some things are really easy to get and you don't need any background information, it is just simple irony. It is really Ironic when Dr.Hilarious drives crazy. He is a psychiatrist, he is suppose to cure crazy people with medicated prescriptions. Instead, he prescribes LSD and  "is gone crazy. He took a chair and smashed the switchboard with it"(108),needing the help rather than giving it. He thought that "Three men with submachine guns were after. Terrorists, fanatics"(109) were after him. He ends up admitting that he was a Nazi Doctor in Buchenwald and used his facial expression as a weapon to render jews permanently catatonic. Oedipa ends up doing Dr. Hilarious' own psychoanalysis. When it was her who need one.

Going back to my inside joke point I want you to see this video, if you are Colombian you probably understand taking into account that you have some background information of the situation if you are not you will probably feel a bit lost just as I do in some parts of the book.

Can We Judge Pychon?

I can't help noticing how times have change even through literature, well that is obvious isn't it? Writing has accompanied humans since it was created showing the change of humanity. You may be wondering why am I writing this, what does it have to do with The Crying Of Lot 49, is there a pint on reading this blog? Well there is a point. This book was written in 1966 a period of modernization in the USA, the opening of a new era, a new mentality. In class we were asked to write historic events occurring in that time, and most of us came up with drugs, hippies etc. But one particular event just led me to more conclusions and that was Martin Luther King and Racism. Pynchon wrote this book in a critical period of racism, were it was beginning to be something of the past but was still present. In chapter 4, and through out the whole book I was annoyed by the way he described people from other races. He wrote: "Around them, all Negroes carried gunboats of mashed potatoes,spinach,shrimp,zucchini,pot roast,the long, glittering steam tables,preparing to feed noontide invasion of Yoyodyne workers"(65). The word Negro is a very depicting word, a discrimination to narrow it down a little. But although it sounds a but harsh on them, it was how they were treated, they were no African Americans they were Negroes who were not as capable as White people.

There is also some kind of resentment towards hispanics Pynchon writes:"For she had undergone her own educating at a time of nerves,blandness, and retreat among not only her fellow students but also most of the visible structure around and ahead of them, this having been a national reflex to certain pathologies in high places only death had had the power to cure, and this Berkeley was like no somnolent Siwash out of her own past at all, but more akin to those far eastern or Latin American universities you read about,those autonomous culture media where the most beloved of folklores ,cataclysm of dissent voiced, suicidal of commitments chosen--the sort that bring governments down"(83).  There is a clear target to the Latin American culture and education, he is comparing Oedipas education to ours showing how it fails, leaning to America as the only prosperous choice. We have to recall that in that time most of the Mexicans migrated to the USA and the opportunities given could not be compared to what hispanics lived before.

It may be sound a bit bitter but it was the time in which the book was written, there was racism and although the time was changing it was still present in most of the cases.

Si Vede La Mafia?

Reading Chapter 3 I found myself with something quite repetitive: La Cosa Nostra. Once I read that, I had a sudden flashback to a class when my friends were mocking me about the italian mafia. It all came back to me,  Cosa Nostra "is a Sicialian criminal society which is believed to have emerged in late 19th century Sicily, and the first such society to be referred to as a mafia (although it is not the first organized criminal society to appear in Italy)" (wikipedia).

Pychon's target here is the mafia wars dealt with in the 60's, but i found it interesting how he mocked them. The bone thing was quite awkward, he writes:"Tony Jaguar decided he could surely unload his harvest of bones on some American someplace, through his contacts in the "family,"known these days as Cosa Nostra" (47). In that time there was more of a market of heroin, it was the first mafia war.

What makes it more humorous is how Di Presso is running away from his own client, maybe showing the conspiracy held in the Mafia's in that time and how dangerous they were.

Irony Of The Day (Chapter 2)

Teacher: So now kids let's see what you have learned from today's class of The Crying Of Lot 49. Yes Mark.

Mark: We learned how the Irony plays in the second chapter.

Teacher: Can you children give me an example? Yes leslie

Leslie: It is very  easy,  when Odeipa said: "What did Iverarity tell about me," she asked finally and Metzger responded: "That you wouldn't be easy"(30).

Teacher: But why is it irony? Yes Sammy

Sammy: Because she was easy, she was tempted by Metzeger and was let herself get involved quite easily with Metzeger.

Teacher: Very good children! she turned around and they all had left for recess...

So Now what... The Bees? (Chapter 2)

First of all lets listen to this song:

Isn't it wonderful? But lets just look at in the world of The Crying Of Lot 49, rather than being called "I want to hold your hand" it is called "I want to kiss your feet" 

a clear mockery of The Beatles' single.

When Oedipa goes into the motel she meets with Miles "maybe 16 with a Beatle haircut" (16). When I read this I thought, "what is it with this guy, I know the Beatles were awesome but what's the point of bringing them back every two pages?" I kept on reading and my question was answered: "It's the group I'm in" Miles explained, the paranoids. We're new yet. Our manager says we should sing like that. We watch English Movies a lot, for the accent"(17). A side from the constant allusion to the Beatles I noticed the target here, how Pychon is questioning the influence this rock group had in our culture, in humans. The way they had been limiting the expression to a mediocre kind of sound, that was still a great phenomenon and will always be. How everything was controlled by them and everyone depended, in a way, on them.

Finally I Found A Period (Chapter 1)

Well I have to admit it is an interesting book. Although you start it without having a clue of what Tomas Pynchon wants to say, you end up intrigued with what will come next. I know it may sound as if I have not much to write, I am complementing the book but I promise I have a point. This satirical book kept me distracted and it took a real long time for me to concentrate on what was going on. After some debate with my mind, I noticed it was Thomas Pynchon's way of writing. He never ends his point, starts describing and describing or giving more details of the scene that by the time there is a period I end up thinking on how my friday ended, missing the point of the book.

Ill give you an example, Pychon writes: "Yet at least had believed in cars. maybe to excess: how could he not, seeing people poorer than him come in, Negro, Mexican, cracker, a parade seven days a week, bringing the most godawful of trade ins: motorized, metal extensions of themselves, of their families and what their whole lives must be like[...]"(5). I am sorry to tell you but it goes on, can you believe it? By the time I reached cracker my mind was thinking: "is it over yet?" 

But  i'll show you how my mind went on while reading with another fragment of this sentence: "or only of dust-and of those alive "oh I can't take it anymore" when the cars were swept out you had to look at the actual residue of their lives, and there was no way of telling what things had been truly refused "Were is the satire here?" should I take a 5 minute break?"(when so little he supposed came by that out of fear most of it had been taken and kept) and what had simply (perhaps tragically) "I did so bad on my Macbeth essay, oh wait I need to focus"[...] as the sentence went my mind went as well... 

There must be a reason for which Pychon is writing like that, maybe he finds it amusing to distract people, or he sees it as a way of making fun of a type of writing, which I am not fond of, but still the story amused me, it took me to another place: quite aside from reality, but fun in a way, just like when you go to the movies and get so into the movie that you are taken to the same world it pictures, I had to refocus sometimes but when I focused the chapter was quite entertaining, just as it is entertaining to write with only commas.

After All Selfishness Leads To Altruism

Being Selfish

After all the book was called The Selfish Gene and it ends up selfish. There is no altruism here, or at least I did not get the feeling of it. After some years of convincing myself that I was not selfish and I really cared fro the world, I saw the true reflection of every human being through this book. I know this is not much of a moral book, it was not Dawkins intention. WE have been fooled by our own conscious even if we try we will seem altruistic but it is our selfishness who ends up winning. We have been "cheating in subtle ways against our social companions"(236). Every part of us has a self interest, "single genes cheat against their other genes with which they share a body" (236).

Our genes have replicated in that way and that is why we are such a disappointment or we can say the whole earth is, and sadly " the success that a replicator has in this world will depend on what kind of world it is" (265). If that was our hope, to have some genes that were not selfish and worth replicating, well with what was just said we are screwed. 

 If it all depends on our world we have no hope...

Macbeth Through The Selfish Eye

I am sitting in front of my laptop thinking of a way I could find The Selfish Gene a bit more interesting. I decided to take my imagination to a more scientific perspective turning myself into the one and only Richard Dawkins. I don't make a really good Dawkins, but it's worth a try.

When "I" wrote: "The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or unit of imitation. Instead of writing, "examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases,clothes [...] (192)."I" would have used Shakespeare and Macbeth as the one example.

Shakespeare has been an "idea that catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain"(192). Shakespeare has been an all time writer who has enlightened the world with his wonderful masterpieces such as Macbeth. But, "How does it {meme} replicate itself?"(192). By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and art" (193). We can see it with the following:

"If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly. If the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here,"(Act 1 Scene 7) "Why does this have such survival value?" (193) It has been Shakespeare who has inspired the art of English literature and the genes of his work who have prevailed through time.

The So Called Altruism

When I started reading chapter 10 I thought: "Finally, Dawkins has talked about that so called altruism that was underestimated by the selfishness of genes!" I was actually beginning to like it, he was talking about something else besides selfishness, until he wrote: "There is no altruism here, only self exploitation by each individual of every other individual"(168). The example of the 'model' he created was apparently not altruistic at all. Then, my hopes got up again when he came to the alarming bird example it was altruistic but it ended up selfish again. Dawkins wrote:"The best policy is indeed to fly up into a tree, but to make sure everybody else does too. That way, he[the bird] will not become an odd man out and he will not forfeit the advantages of being part of a crowd,but he will gain advantage of flying out into cover. Once again, uttering warning call is seen to have a purely selfish advantage"(170).  So, once again no matter how hard we try we end up putting our benefits first than the others.

 It is actually quite true. Living in a third world country has made it more possible to believe. Every christmas my mom and I recollect clothing and give it to the poor, we are helping people, but then my "selfish gene" of personal satisfaction comes to the game. I end up happy because I helped, even if the help was not for myself.

If you are still not convinced I checked on the New York Times an article called "Schools to Start Offering Swine Flu Shots" it said: "Swine flu vaccinations will begin in the city’s public elementary schools next week, officials said Tuesday as they encouraged parents to sign consent forms being sent home with students now"(NYT oct 20). This may seem altruistic because schools are concerned with the children's health and want to do everything to protect them. But then again it comes to selfishness when the school offers the vaccination for its own protection so the children in the institution don't infect or harm the sake of the educational curriculum.

So it seems that we were just "survival machines" that were meant to be selfish.

The ESS Of Sexes

Moral In The Selfish Gene

Today in class some people said that The Selfish Gene was a didactic book, at first I thought: "sure why not? it has examples,"but obviously I was forgetting what didactic meant.  Once I remembered the meaning I thought: "what was I thinking?" and that is the clear response you should have towards The selfish gene being didactic, there is nothing moral about this book. As Dawkins himself said: "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved"(2).

To make my point clearer I will make you see chapter 8 as if it had any moral, to see if it makes sense. We will omit what Dawkins said in chapter one.

Lets start with a complete scenery of the situation:

Sammy is in Mr. Tangen's Pre-Ap English class. He is a very influential kid who likes to learn new things from books. He  got home, tired of school. And started preparing your mind for the everlasting 8th chapter of The Selfish Gene. He wanted to understand how evolution has contributed to human behavior, and tried to find some useful ideas for life (once again, he has omitted the first pages of chapter 1). Sammy read the following: "Using our metaphor of the individual as a survival machine behaving as if it had a purpose of preserving its genes, we can talk about a conflict between parents and the young, a battle of the generations"(131).  As soon as Sammy read this his mother came in. Sammy wanted a new cellphone and he knew that it was his time to start begging for one. Suddenly his mind recalled something from The Selfish Gene: "The battle is a subtle one, and no holds are barred on either side. The child is too small and week to bully its parents physically, but it uses every phycological weapon at its disposal: lying,cheating,deceiving, exploiting [...](131)." As soon as his mind came to this quote, he started bribing his mom on doing more chores and on lying about how his grades have been better so he could obtain his "purpose of preserving his genes" which in Sammy's case they will help him preserve the social genes.

As you can see dear old Sammy ended up quite influenced with the selfish gene, that is why what Dawkins meant was just for evolutionary reasons. If the book were moral and influenced people as much as it did for Sammy it would make the human behavior even worse than it is now. If we did not question our existence as we have done for the past few decades, what Dawnkins said would be completely normal, we would have an animal mentality that would just go on with life. But we have tried to avoid this seeing the world in a different perspective, and clearly this way of life, proposed in the book (if it were moral) is not the right path, at least for the hope of making humans ethical creatures. 

So I just thank Dawnkins for writing: "This Book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning"(3). There are a lot of Sammys in the world, imagine if this was nit written.

Chapter 5: A Typical Day In A Typical High School

I was completely wrong, Candide was not boring at all it was fun an entertaining compared to the Selfish Gene. I know we have to learn of evolution but isn't that the point of science class? I practically felt in it while reading. That is why, to make it more entertaining, I decided to try to find a relation with all of this to our daily lives.

Lets turn our minds to a typical day in a typical high school. As you know there are certain social groups within the same grade. The only relation in which we see that each group bears with another group is when they, "may be predators or prey, parasites or hosts,competitors for some scarce resource. They may be exploited in special ways"(67). You might think this doesn't make sense but it really does. For example, there is the  the popular group, they compete against the nerd's group for some kind of grade or an achievement in class( it's not very likely but it happens),or something much probable when the popular group exploits the nerds to copy their homework in exchange of something.  When I quoted "predators or prey" I referred to it as when a group is the prey, in the sense of social humiliation or rejection of one of the other groups. We can see it when the not so social rejects("lions") mock the nerds ("antelopes"),when people laugh at someone or discriminate him because of what their wearing, etc. To survive to these types of behaviors  each social group has to use "An evolutionary stable strategy or ESS"(69), to make it safely to graduation, or just to at least have a livable day in high school, after all you spend half of you adolescent life in it. Take this as an example: "Lions and antelopes have reached a kind of stability by evolutionary divergence. They have become highly proficient in the art of chasing and running away"(84). Don't take it literal, that is not the point. Think of it as any group of whatever grade that starts humiliating someone from another group, the "ESS" of that someone is to ignore them or just run away. Sadly, everyone wishes that things were different but things are just the way they are. You can think that the "antelope" could just stand up for himself and prove that he is worthy as anyone else, but "a 'stand and fight' strategy against lions would be less successful"(84). It is just the way of surviving, the person from that group, or the group itself, would  even get  more hurt and end up worse than before. That is why we have stick to that "kind of dominance hierarchy"(82), to survive those four years that may seem a waste of time.

Maybe it is just a matter of a typical high school to understand nature...

Not a Fairytale

I woke up this morning by a friend calling me, his call made me realize that I had to finish the boring book we were reading in english: Candide. I did everything that is possible to avoid that responsibility until I realized I had more homework and it was better for me to start. 

It's frustrating to read something that doesn't interest you but most of all that even if your trying to like  the story you just can't seem to be attracted to it. I read the book with that mentality until, I read the most disappointing words that Voltaire had ever written: "At he bottom of his heart Candide had no wish to marry Cunégode"(138).  Isn't it a bit pathetic? After all he went through and he didn't want to marry her? Voltaire actually made me waste my time for that kind of ending. Well I know it is dramatic irony and we are learning how to identify satire but AGH!! I guess in the end everyone expects a happy ending.

 There is always something you wish for so badly that you can't even sleep, and you go through such unnecessary stuff just to get what you want. Sadly it never ends as you expected it. 

In the case Candide we can see it when Cacombo says to Candide that, "but what is sadder still is that she has lost her beauty and has become horribly ugly"(129). After all he went through he had to deal with an ugly wife? That is just terrible. 

Well that is what you think through the naked eye, but I came to my own conclusion that it is not the result what makes you happy but what you had to go through even if you end up disappointed. As Pangloss said:"There is a chain of events in the best of all possible worlds; for if you had not been turned out of a beautiful mansion at the point of a jackboot for the love of Lady Conégonde, and if you had not been involved in the Inquisition, and had not wandered over America on foot, and had not stuck the Baron with your sword, and lost all those sheep you brought from ELdorado, you would not be here eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts"(144). Obviously it was not "all is for the best" as Candide always believed, he never dreamed of this. But at least he got what he wanted and could experience things he never imagined to. He got Pangloss back, he had a small farm and had the love of his life, even if she was ugly.

Surely the optimism  here is truly disqualified, Voltaire is underestimating the hope people have. Just look at the stories ending. But what will be of us without hope? That was the virtue he had that made him overcome all of his experiences. 

We never have a happy ending, but at least we go through life wishing for one. It may not have been what they expected but they are making the best out of what they have.

Ignorance Or Just A Misunderstanding?

When we read Crystyna's blog today I had that part of the book stuck in my head. Voltaire wrote: "They found the cries came from two naked girls who were tripping along the edge of the meadow, while two monkeys followed the nibbling their buttocks"(69), after that part what I really did not agree with was when she wrote: "She turned her mouth up in a scowl"(honesty of truth). I personally thought that the phrase was not a very PG thing, but we can't judge it in that way. I know that was not her point but we are underestimating the time in which this was written. 

The perspective of the Americas was quite different from what it is now. In that time people did not think the United States is one of the strongest nations in the world or that Colombia has a president who is trying to become a dictator in a democratic way. They hardly even understood what was going on in the Americas. Not everyone had the chance to go there, and if they did have it it was for governmental reasons. Let me remind you that in the point where Candide found "the naked ladies" he was traveling through uncivilized territory. Does it ring a bell? Well they did not understand that there were certain behaviors that were different from the European society. Writers like Voltaire, that had never set foot in the new world, actually imagined how it would be to meet with Indians or with parts that were not influenced by Europe. They did not have reliable resources to write a perfect description of what they saw. Their resources were tales from sailors who thought that what they were seeing was the most primitive, uncivilized, pervert thing in the world. When evidently it was not. If you once in your life consider reading, Decadas de Orbe Novo of Pedro Martir de Angleria, you will understand that in that time people expected to understand what was going on through some writers that based their works without actually living the event. It was sort of a Historical novel, the writer did not live what was going on but he assumed it was like that. The cultural background of that time was created by assumptions.

A side from the fact that this was a satyrical phrase, it also shows us the closed mind people on this time had. How their judgment was so radical that it created perversion on things that were hardly understood. 

Ignorance always leads to misunderstandings.

The Utopia: Chapter XVII-XVIII

 Candide said, "It must be unknown to the rest of the world, because everything is so different from what we are used to"(77). This must be the world talked a about in the description i found in the introduction: "The details lifted from Garcilaso are sometimes grotesque; nevertheless Candide here finds all the eighteenth century Man of reason could desire--a society in which all physical to law;where men simplified religious belief to to the lowest common denominator of natural religion;where neither crime nor war exists; where the achievements of science are respected;and were men enjoy equality and fraternity"(12). This is the kind of world every man dreams of. Sort of the utopia Voltaire wanted to live in. It is incredible how Voltaire's criticism of reality or of the actual world is evident  through "El dorado". When the old man says: "We have so far been sheltered from the greed of the European nations, who have a quite irrational lust for the pebbles and dirt found in our soil"(79). It is absurd how he describes something as valuable and precious as emeralds as "dirt found in our soil" but of how he wants to criticize the greediness of the actual world and also the materialism found in it. As the description in the introduction says this is the escape of Candide of a better world, of the ideal world. Perhaps that was the vision of Voltaire's perfect world and with the descrpition of it society is questioned.

Unfortunately it has been more than 200 years and not one site of this world has been somehow seen.  Luckily we can still dream.

What Lies Beneath The Cross

 When Cacombo says: "The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and people own nothing:that's what I call the masterpiece of reason and justice"(62). It finally came to me, I finally got one of his so called humor! Lets just take a look at what he is saying it is totally ironic and in a weird way it is funny. Obviously his main target is the church and he is criticizing the way religion had been handled, the institution and the misleading principles they had established even in the new world. It is not fair to see how people die of hunger, and the church that is suppose to be compassionate being the main reason of the injustice. That is the whole point of his irony, to criticize the church. 

When Voltaire writes:"I don't think I have ever seen such godlike creatures as the reverend fathers. They fight the Kings of Spain and Portugal over here and give them absolution in Europe"(62). We can see how the reverends approve war, when the church is totally against it, and the hypocrisy they manage to have. The words voltaire uses, "godlike creatures" is the perfect ironical description of the situation. The church in this parody is the description of the lack of moral they had  in their principles and the way they managed situations going against the will of God.

 I must remind you that Voltaire was facing a time in which the church oppressed the human mind and men were actually realizing.

It was time to open the mind to other thoughts that didn't involve a hidden conspiracy in the cross.

Irony At A 99.9%

Seeing that there is no much left to talk about Candide, or at least there is but I am not in the mood of thinking I thought it would be interesting to apply the characteristics of satire to these chapters.

We already know that it is a parody in which most of its writing create the a bitter satyrical humor. What I noticed in these chapters is how irony is the strongest characteristic. Most of the events that happened in the story have a meaning that Voltaire wants to criticize using the opposite. One of the strongest criticism used in Candide is the church, Voltaire in a very subtle way makes the reader realize the corruption and the oppression the church managed in that time. We can see this when the old woman tells her misfortune, "But I have never forgotten that I am the daughter of a Pope"(57). Here we can see how irony is used, a Pope is not suppose to reproduce and clearly in the story he did. Another clear example of Voltaire's irony is when he wrote: "It was a friar with long sleeves who had stolen Cunégonde's money and jewels at Badajoz"(60). Again with the church, Voltaire is showing how a friar, who is supposed to be benevolent is steeling from people and is taken my men's strongest desire: money.

The irony is quite clear in these chapters and is one of the strongest characteristics of satire that make create as such a strong and emotive parody.

Senza Coglioni!

After reading chapters 8-11 I realized that Voltaire's writing reflects the bitterness and intentions of his satire. His language is basic, cruel and vague. His writing seems shallow and savage. The way he describes the events are cruel and with no feeling. But those words that narrate the story stick into our heads showing the immorality of men and how savage we get to be.

In this point of the novel we see the segregation, the superiority and the necessity of men to see women as a mean of lust and reproduction. That was the perception of women in that time, and the language used reflects the way they were treated. For Voltaire to write it it must have been that he disapproved this type of behavior or was questioning societies savageness. The Italian words prove it, "O che sciagura d'essere senza coglioni!"(53). What is said here is how unfortunate was the women on not having balls, meaning the bravery that men have. This is a very sexist comment, specially because it's saying that just because you have "coglioni" you can survive, you could be useful. But because she didn't have well it's a shame and it is gone to waste,  women are just useful for reproduction.

I also mean by cruel when Voltaire writes, "In the end I saw my mother and all our Italian ladies torn limb from limb, slashed and massacred by the monsters that fought for them"(52). That completely repelled me, is a women such and object to tear her apart? The animal instinct in men is still present, our actions don't reflect the reason we have. 

Voltaire in these chapters shows the lust, vengeance, jealousy and all men's sins that have made the world we have today. And how we think we can escape from it. Candide said,"why, even the sea round this new world is better than our Europe seas. It is undoubtedly the new world is the best world of all possible universes"(48). The new world was a mean of escape of thinking everything will be different, but we have are the ones that have to change not the world.

The sins expressed through Voltaire's language through the parody have not been yet avoided, can it be possible to not be described in that way?

Gli coglioni non fanno le persone...

Only The Good Die Young

It is amazing how this parody has so much to say and you don't even realize the strong and bitter humor. I keep on reading and every time I find myself with something Voltaire wants to criticize. No one blames him, after all it is a parody. 

This novel was written in a time where men decided to exploit their potential, and stopped underestimating their reason. But men were oppressed by church power and conservatism, it is seen clearly when, "Pangloss and his pupil, Candide, were arrested as well, one for speaking and the other for listening in the air of approval" (36). This shows the inconformity of Voltaire, maybe his own personal experience of being oppressed of his free will, in a way, and his freedom of speech. Candide is a reflection of the time Voltaire was living. 

Another thing I noticed is how Voltaire goes back to the false heroism Candide was awarded to. The fact that, "Candide was flogged in time with the anthem;the Basque and the two men who refused to eat bacon were burnt; and Pangloss was hanged"(37), makes it hard to believe that after not doing anything, and wondering in life without something clear the one who died was Pangloss and not him. Voltaire is showing how we award those who are not really worth it and have not proven themselves to life. How we let pass great minds, forgetting how our world needs them. 

What really makes it absurd is that Candide ends up with the girl, "He had the surprise of his life, for his astonishing gaze it seemed that Lady Cunégode stood before him" (39). After all the great Philosopher dies, and he ends up with more luck than him. It is a shame how some deserve the luck and they just don't have it. But who are we to judge?

That is why Queen's song, No One But You (Only The Good Die Young) describes perfectly these chapters.

 hand above the water
An angel reaching for the sky
Is it raining in heaven -
Do you want us to cry?

And everywhere the broken-hearted
On every lonely avenue
No-one could reach them
No-one but you

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flying too close to the sun
And life goes on -
Without you...

Another Tricky Situation
I get to drownin' in the Blues
And I find myself thinkin'
Well - what would you do?

Yes! - it was such an operation
Forever paying every due
Hell, you made a sensation
You found a way through 

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flyin' too close to the sun
We'll remember -
Forever...

And now the party must be over
I guess we'll never understand
The sense of your leaving
Was in the way it was planned...

So we grace another table
And raise our glasses one more time
There's a face at the window
And i aint never, never saying goodbye...

One by one
Only the Good die young
They're only flyin' too close to the sun
Cryin' for nothing
Cryin' for no-one
No-one but you

Not Everything Is For The Best

I can't find a particular interest in the story of Candide because it is much absurd for my taste. Never the less, the constant criticism has made it interesting because it makes us understand what was going on in that time. I personally think that we would have a better perception of the book or at least understand the satire better if we lived in that time, or if we experienced the philosophy of life those people had. In these chapters I had to go back to the introduction to find the purpose of voltaire and understand his acid humor.

Throughout the chapters voltaire always wrote how, "Pangloss explained to him [Candide] how all was designed for the best"(31). Every page Pangloss commented on the same thing. That must have meant something to Voltaire. I tried to find the meaning of it, but it is hard because sometimes I rely a lot on that saying, and that is why I didn't find it satyrical. But then I questioned myself, "why would he repeat this so much?, when practically there was no hope for them." It must have been that he was against this. 

In that time the only hope was God, and people relied on him as if he were guilty and as if he made everything happen "for the best". But it is this that Voltaire wants to criticize, not the fact that we believe in a God but that we are led to false expectations because we are so optimistic. It is not wrong to be optimistic, on the contrary it is a very good quality but it is wrong when we mislead it. Voltaire said that, "If all is for the best is explained in an absolute sense, without offering hope for the future, it is only an insult to the miseries we endure"(10). It is as if he were saying that if the words don't really imply a change or don't promise to make the things better they will make everything worse. Those words or our false expectations of hope are like a shield that in a way make us feel better but they really are creating a lie within our thoughts. It is not the words that voltaire is against of but the way we constantly use them without results.

That way of criticism is what made me realize that this in could be considered an ethical book, that has more advice to life than what you think. Even if we are not living in Voltaire's time and he have different perceptions, our principles have always been the same, they have come from the same roots.

The More Obvious It Can get

Through out the book I realized the whole point of all the topics in class, Candide is the typical example of a satirical novel.

As we go through Candide's story we understand how he is not a real hero, but the circumstances make him one. In chapter two we see how, "after being turned out of this earthly, Candide wandered off without thinking which way he was going"(22). Along his journey he finds some men who ask him if he is devoted to the King of the Bulgars, and he with no doubt affirms.  What is quite ironic or absurd, both apply to the case, is that after saying that he is captured and kidnapped but out of nowhere, "The King of the Bulgars passed by at that moment and asked what crime the culprit had committed"(24). And after that of course he is saved. 

I didn't retell chapter 2 for no reason, I just want readers to notice how obvious or dull can this story be. It is quite absurd to be banned from love, and also to be saved just because casually a King cam passing by and he was merciful.

What is Voltaire trying to say here? That life is what you create? Maybe he is trying to make us see how people create heroism out of no reason and don't understand that life isn't as easy as a fairy tale. Voltaire wants us to understand that we are the creators of our own destiny and that the utopia everyone dreams of does not really exist.

Candide is the novel that will open our eyes into the real world.

Not The Right Time

As this is a handbook,  we have the choice to decide if we use his advice or not, but relating it to the Advice to Youth text we read today I certainly want to omit Epictetus. 

It's quite interesting how we are asked to read something that in a way is so meaningless. How can you expect children our age be able to , " do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things or unrestrainedly"(33), when what interests us most is to try to find happiness. It is as if Epictetus was taking the natural instinct of youth. I know this was not precisely written for youth but after all we are the ones reading it. 

When Epictetus wrote: "Speak rarely, when the occasion requires speaking, but not just about any topic that come up but, not about gladiators, horse races,athletes, eating or drinking-the things that always come up; and especially if it is about people, talk without blaming, or praising, or comparing"(33), he is write about the moral of the situation, but come on, lets be realistic. How can he ask someone at this point in time to not compare or blame? It is totally impossible because of the superficial world teenagers live in. I tell you a at this point of age no one can survive without talking, unless you want to become a social reject. And not just talking but talking about, "gladiators,horse races, athletes, eating or drinking"(33), which of course it is not precisely that but more or less things like: facebook, msn,gossip, and all those things that make it funner for a teenager but make the world fail in success.

It may be adequate to teach all this stuff but not right now, youth does not even mind.

Dear Mr. Frost:

As I read your poem, I was quite frustrated with the way you wrote it. It was quite impressive how you describe the opportunities you may have in life. How destiny fulfills a person's life and the journey is up to one's decision not others. But as I closely read, I understood that you are expressing it more as a person who chooses his/her own destiny:".  I think it's your choice to live up to it but its someone else's job to create it. If you read my handbook you can clearly see my point: "Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it to be short, long if he wants it long"(17).   As you can see there is a Playwright, someone who writes the destiny, what I mean is that we have to play our life as it was meant for us because " to choose it belongs to someone else"(17). 

I may disagree with some of your points but the way you want someone to get along with his destiny is quite interesting.

Best Regards:

Epictetus

Being Fearful

In section 21, I completely disagree with Epictetus.  It is true that men should overcome fear, and once it is accomplished nothing will be "craved excessively" (21). But, what are men without there fears?

 

We wouldn't be anything at all. Fear itself made great discoveries. Avoiding fear of death or "everything that is terrible" (21) makes us practically deny men's nature. Fear and everything that is terrible is what makes us stop and think what we don't want to be, if we overcome that what will be of us? We will be wrecked in a world full of everything with no stop at all.

Epictetus in a way  is right, if we overcoming fear there will be no stress, and after all we have to learn not to fear death. But fear and the fact of being scared of something is part of a human, it's what makes us sinners, beggars, our conscience is made of fear. 

If it weren't for the fear of consequences or causes, we would not have the little voice in our heads warning us of danger. It is perfectly normal to have these feelings they are part of us and the don't necessarily make us "crave excessively" (21). On the contrary, those things might be beneficial for our lives.

Are We All Actors?

I researched in Wikipedia something about the Handbook we were reading. I found out that, "To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control, but we can accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately"(Wikipedia.com). In section 17, I realized that what Wikipedia said was true when I read, "Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if we wants it short, long if he wants it long"(17). The playwright is fate, who puts the challenges in our lives, and we are the actors who have to play along. Once we accept our role the better our play (life) will come out. Its not our choice, what we have to play but, "What is yours it to play the assigned part well"(17).

Moving on towards something else I found myself interested in the introduction. It said, "The works of the earlier Stoics survive in only fragmentary quotations from other authors, but from the renaissance until the nineteenth century, Stoic was ethically thought was one of the most important ancient influences on european cities" (Introduction). Suddenly I had a flashback that took me back to a Shakespeare's play called As You Like It, "follows its heroine Rosalind as she flees persecution in her uncle's court, accompanied by her cousin Celia and Touchstone the court jester, to find safety and eventually love in the Forest of Arden"(Wikipedia), where she meets with her father,(The duke) who lost his power to her uncle. Anyways, my point was that in this play there is a scene where a character makes a similar reference to section 17:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts, 
infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
His acts being seven ages. At first, the
then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail 
to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, 
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation 
al cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; A
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of for
mnd so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slippered pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side; His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide 
 Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything. ( As You Like It Act II Scene VII)
 
As you can see both literal and symbolical level are expressed similarly. Shakespeare and Epictetus refer to the acting part, but as doing a close reading both interpret it as fate. 
With this I want to prove how the Stoics philosophy has been very influential to the perspective of the world.

The world has based all of its progress in ancient discoveries, the past has made what we are today. If it weren't for Epictetus or Stoic philosphy, Shakespeare would not have written this act. Maybe he would but not with the intention that he wants to express.

I saw the play, at first I did'nt understand why Jaques (a servant of the duke) started saying that to the duke, but then as I read Epictetus, it all came to me. The Duke was upset and questioning his exile in the Forest of Arden, and Jaques refers to his dialogue as fate, and how to live up to it. Just as Epictetus stated it in section 17.

The greatest minds all create some kind of allusions in their works. We could not be anything if other pople greater than us would'nt have existed.

The Psychoanalysis

The door opens, my psychologist is waiting for me to sit down. I greet her with a smile. As I sit down my problems come fast and vividly as a flashback, making it easier for me to express my depression to her.

I am sick totally overwhelmed with society, I need some relief, maybe thats why I have psychological help. 

I start talking about how I had to lie to my friends about my clothes. I told them they were designer's clothes when they really weren't, and now they accept me because they think I wear fashionable clothing.

She stays silent for a moment and then answers: "If you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted,miserable and upset, and will blame both god and men"(1).

It was quite wise what she said. Then I thought, "she is totally right, I am suffering for being something I am not, why should I keep on with this?"

I continued with my problems, telling her about how the people I hang out with are always telling me what to do and I have to change for them.  I told her that in my school there are other people that are much fun, but they are total losers.

She paused, sighed and then answered: " At each thing that happens to you, remember to turn to yourself and ask what capacity  you have for dealing with it. If hardship comes to you will find endurance. If it is abuse, you will find patience. And if you become used to this you will not become carried away my appearances"(10).

When I looked at the time, my session was over. I turned to the door and thought: "I have a lot to think about..." 

Just in case none of this is real, any similarities with reality are just coincidence.

Analytic Essay

Thesis Statement: Kurt Vonnegut is part of Slaughter House-Five by being the narrator of Billy Pilgrim's life.

Sections for close reading:

"Now Billy and the rest were being marched into the ruins by the guards. I was there" (212).

"That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book" (125).

"The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his. Another guy I knew really did threaten to have his personal enemies killed by  hired gunmen after war. And so on. I've changed all the names "(1).

"I went to the University of Chicago for a while after the Second Word War. I was a student in the department of Anthropology"(8).

"He [Billy Pilgrim] graduated from Ilim High School, in the upper third of the class, and attended night sessions at the Ilium School of Optometry for one semester before being drafted for military service in the Second World War" (24).

Argumentation points:

1. Who is the narrator.

2. Why is it Vonnegut and not Billy.

3. How do Vonnegut and Billy relate.

The Endless Timetravel

I was very disappointed to come to the end of the book, with "World War two in Europe was over" (215). That was Vonnegut's way of ending Slaughter House-Five, which was king of mediocre.  We end up expecting another chapter, but unfortunately half of the story is opened to personal approaches. 

It has come to the end of Billy Pilgrim, his unresolved story has ended with the "Poo-tee-weet"(215). We didn't even get the chance to understand Billy's misery, his reason for time traveling or many other things that opened doubts to readers. 

What really made me think was how Vonnegut prepared the reader for the ending, this was more frustrating because when you read you don't pay attention to the details. Vonnegut wrote at the beginning of Chapter 1, "with a breath like mustard and gases"(4), then in Chapter 10 he comes back to the beginning, "But then the bodies rotted and liquified, and the stick was like roses and mustard gases"(214). Obviously it is not a coincidence, Vonnegut must have wrote it to relate it to something. Perhaps death? Failure? Memories? Maybe how we lose our conscience when we are drunk as when we are dead, or how we keep on living rotting inside. It is interesting how an author can twist information and make a reader think. 

This novel needs to be read closely otherwise Vonnegut's real message wouldn't be evident.

Billy's little journey through time was the way Vonnegut used to express his anti-war position capturing people's attention through irony and time travel. 

Vonnegut's last words were, "there was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin shaped" (215). Its the end of the war, of Vonnegut's attempt to change the human mind. Thats the coffin, the end of something, a stored memory that will never fade.

We don't realize that not everything has an ending...

Not Courage But Failure

At the end of the chapter there is a curious little illustration (Pg.209) I realized how Vonnegut mixes illustrations with significant phrases. Personally when I saw the drawing I did not pay much attention to it, I was just excited because I was coming to the end of the chapter but  then  I read "god grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference."(Pg 209) 

Something that just bumped my thoughts was the fact that Billy was never like that, he didn't have any courage, he hardly believed in God, and "among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present and the future."(Pg.60) As we can see, Vonnegut again plays with a bit of irony.  It's strange how Vonnegut represents the total opposite of Billy in Montana. She's beautiful, she had a life Billy didn't. But maybe that's the reason why he did it, Billy needed someone who actually complimented him, not like Valencia who was a wife for convenience. 

Billy's life is a clear example of failure, of going everywhere without going anywhere.

Not a Concrete Idea

Despite my laziness, this chapter inspired me on writing.

One thing I noticed in chapter eight of Slaughter House-Five was how Vonnegut relates all of Billy's time travel to his anxieties and internal problems. If we see in chapter eight when Billy feels that"The experience was definitely associated with those four men and not what they sang."(Pg.175) Obviously Billy has been impacted by something that happened in the past which always comes back when he sees the barbershop quartet. As I read along I found the past incident that produced the melancholy in Billy: " The guards drew together instinctively,rolled their eyes. They experimented with one expression and then another,said nothing, though their mouths were often open. They looked like a silent film of barbershop quartet." (Pg. 178) But that is not my point, it is to show you how not only his past and present, if we can say, were marked by the barbershop quartet but also his future (its all relative, avoid recalling Billy's time travel) "The barbershop quartet was singing "Wait Till the Sun Shines Nelly,"when the plane smacked into the top of Sugarbush Mountain in Vermont." His life is predetermined to never change, no matter the time in which he is living.

Thats not all I wanted to write. When Mary O'Hare said, "You were all babies in the war-like the ones upstairs!"(Pg.14) That little phrase stuck in my head. I thought to myself, " Vonnegut has a point there, after all it is an anti-war book, he must be trying to say something." Evidently I was right, he keeps on repeating these type of phrases through satire: "Billy told trout about Rosewater." "My God-I thought he was about fourteen years old" said Trout. " A full grown man-a captain in war." Its quite interesting how Vonnegut uses a bit of humor and irony to prove his point.

 I just have to end my blog saying that "we are all afraid of something"( Pg. 171) No matter how big or small is our fear, we will still be more weak as ever. Through our actions we show our fear.

Dragged By Ignorance

“I like Hugo Chavez because he hates bush, and I hate Bush.” These were the words that ruined my day.

Is it possible than one little comment can ruin your peaceful mood? Well if it is an ignorant and superficial comment, it can.

As a reader you might think I am over reacting, I must tell you I’m not. It’s not just the comment; it is the people that say it. Just because they have everything in life, it doesn’t mean they can go saying inappropriate comments that reflect their superficiality. This might be a despicable appreciation, but why is there a space in this world for people that shallow? Isn’t it enough that our world is torn apart? Come on people, there are children dying of famine, human rights are constantly violated, there is a climate crisis, wars, etc. There is just no more room to deal with people who are more interested in texting a friend about the latest gossip.

I really thought humans had something animals didn’t: reason. I am not denying most of us have it, but some others lack of it. Maybe they misuse it, but it seems as if they did not even know what it was.

If you don’t agree with me, don’t worry I can give you an example: you go outside to hangout with your friends. Everything is going as you planned, until you see children begging on the streets, Chavez inventing excuses to create war, Uribe wanting reelection and many other problems that despise you. But what really vexes you is, the annoying person who is in front of you that whines because he/she is fat, that complains because the taxes are too high when they just bought a Porsche, or simply that criticize someone because they are not wearing Abercrombie.  Every single day there is breaking news about another crisis in our country and we have to deal with these comments or complaints? They are simply making our world worse than it is.

I think if we thought less about ourselves and actually concentrate in what is happening today, we could really avoid all this drama. We could actually support our society, which is overwhelmed with violence and negativity.

I am just saying that some people do want to make a difference. They don’t want to be dragged by today’s world that is based on superficiality, materialism and ignorance.

Its your choice, which path will you take?

 

The Slip

"Every creature and plant in the Universe is a machine." (Pg.154) There is nothing to do about it, its just the truth. We are insensitive, arrogant, superficial people, that act based upon other's actions.

I'm tired of reading the same thing, and writing the same. Today's blog inspired me into writing a constructive criticism to society. 

We act as if,  "Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"(Pg.122) besides of the noticeable irony, its a fact in today's society. We go around as if nothing mattered, as if the only thing on our minds were gossip, talking and Facebook. We are just a machine thats repeats a routine for no purpose at all. 

At the beginning of the week,  I saw a movie called: Peaceful Warrior. A great movie i must say, but not only the film was good but the message. It said that our lives end up being a daily thing, with no appreciation, at all. Life ends up being irritating for most of us. We just let it slip through our hands, and never realize. 

We don't want to end like Billy: "She asked Billy Pilgrim what he was supposed to be.Billy said he didn't know. He was just trying to be warm." (Pg.159) Or maybe we do...

On Living Latin Response

I agree with the blogger, that a language most be lived or  be expressed in daily routines: "The 'most alive' languages have native speakers and transmit from parent to child between generations. Latin is plainly not alive in that sense." But the fact that "The Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis came out a few years ago - over 700 pages of modern vocabulary." It does not make it for me a reliving language. I think that for a language to relive, it needs to be spoken by a lot of people, and it must have evolved with modern times. Its hard to relive a language that has been stuck in time, languages evolve to. There may be new vocabulary, and people who speak it, but i think it is not enough. 

Slaughter-house five: A Real Masacre

After today's discussion in class, about Billy Pilgrim's time travel, I kept thinking it was more of an allegorical reason. After all it is an anti-war book, Vonnegut must have done it to leave a clear message to the reader. 

"He was marking the boundary between the American and English sections of the compound"(Pg.144) What could this possibly mean? That even as allies, we fight. That there is nothing in common among us except hatred, vengeance and massacre.

If we see, Billy Pilgrim is the reflection of man kind, of how he goes through the world being an optometrist, curing the eyesight. But it will never be cured because, its not the eye, its what you see. We have been used to everything and letting it pass through our lives without finding a solution:"It was a familiar symbol from childhood."(Pg.144)

Billy never changed, even if he traveled through time. He was always the same coward, who went through life as miserable as ever, who was never content with anything and who was always hopeless.  That is what war is and how men are in war, something that never changes, it will always be useless and meaningless but always stuck in human mentallity.

 "Its time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again"(Pg. 143) I relate this quote to how war sometimes ends, but somehow men always bring it up again.

Slaughter-House five time travels, to show how men really are.

A Resolved Doubt

While reading chapter five, I kept on thinking on who was the narrator of the book. It was really driving me crazy. Billy pilgrim's adventures distracted me and the fact that he was never happy with his life:" Are you happy here?" "About as happy as i was on earth said billy" He was in a cage, with no-one to socialize, being exposed as an object as an entertainment, normal people would be unhappy. But clearly this was as miserable as his life on earth, showing how hopeless he was. BUt the idea kept buzzing in my head. 

Until... KAPOOM!!!  "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book" those words enlightened me. These words were said when Billy went to the latrine, and "an american wailed that he had excreted everything but his brains" that, my friends,  was Kurt Vonnegut.

Maybe the class was right. At the end, Vonnegut would meet up with Billy in some point of the book, but why would he write about billy and not his war story?

Maybe Not That Useless

After Chapter four, I was extremely disappointed with the book. I was actually enjoying it, the book reflected a clear perspective of the loneliness soldiers could get to feel in something as useless as war. It showed the atrocious acts in war and how it has no point. But most important of all a person's feelings in it,"He sincerely believed that he would shatter like glass."(Slaughter House-Five pg 81) I was  really into it, its hard for a writer to make a reader feel compassionate, but that was what Konnegut was doing, at least in my case. 

But you know how all happiness ends quite quickly. It ended for me with the "The flying saucer"(Slaughter House-Five pg 75) its so unreal. Its as if Konnegut didn't have anymore to write. What is  the point of it? Is "Trafalmadore" trying to say something? Because I just cant seem to get anything out of it.  I understand the way he is traveling through time, its quite interesting, but its really getting out the sense of the story. Its suppose to be an anti-war book, but how can a Trafalmadorian express that topic?

My questions  were all  answered, as I read the chapter. The chapter showed how " Billy was guided by dread and the lack of dread."(Slaughter House-Five Pg. 73)   He looses family, friends and even is blamed of someone's death.  He felt alone in german lines, and he was hopeless.

It took me some time to understand that perhaps, even if I don't like it or see the point, there is  a reason for Trafalmadore: a place that can open Billy's eyes, showing him that there is no escape or change in his life. That he is and will always be "Trapped in another blob of amber."   (Slaughter House-Five Pg. 85) 

So we can just go back again to the same citation that may clear it all: "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past,the present and the future."( Slaughter House-Five Pg. 60) 

Maybe that is war, something with no change, no matter the reason, it will always be hopeless.