George Orwell’s Politics And The English Language

Argument: English has become decadent because of unoriginal thoughts and our methods of expressing them in order to conceal this. The use of these devices helps deepen and conceal the damage of many unwanted realities.

Irony:

1. "But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."
   

   We see how here he is being wordy. I could reword this by saying This could cause a positive feedback loop. The former would follow all of the hints for appropriate writing he gives later on. He probably did this on purpose to make the writer get lost on an idea that isn't as complicated as he phrases here. He is using a similar method to the one he is arguing against.
   

2. "Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against."
   

   This is ironical because he is blatantly accepting he uses this type of writing which he is protesting against. The last irony proves this statement. What he is probably trying to say is that even if people aren't perfect and this way of writing never disappears completely it would be infinitely better if we no longer accepted it.
   

Defined Terms:

Dying Metaphors: Overused comparisons that no longer serve their purpose and are used for simplicity or as filler

Meaningless Words: Words that serve no purpose and have no meaning with in a sentence.

Pretentious Diction: Mostly foreign expressions that make a statement apparently say more but in reality only make it vaguer.

Ten Steps To Good Writing:

1. Don't use overly complicated expressions.
   
2. Don't use a figure of speech you are used to seeing.
   
3. Always change a long word for a shorter one if available.
   
4. Remove as many words as possible.
   
5. Always use active over passive.
   
6. Avoid foreign expressions, scientific terms and other jargons, use its English equivalent.
   
7. Always revise before publishing.
   
8. Think what you are going to write before writing it.
   
9. Don't dress up simple statements with complicated expressions.
   
10. Maintain a constant style.

Everything is Nothing

In poem 17 Whitman talks about "thoughts of all men and in all ages and lands" (poem 17). As I read though this poem I was reminded greatly about a cliché. Not that the poem is a cliché but the thoughts he described were clichés. As Mr.Tangen says: "Writing is thinking on paper". If this is true then clichés are thoughts which aren't original, everybody knows them and they are nothing.

The first line of the poem means that everybody has these ideas. They belong to no one and thus they are close to nothing. The third line means that these thoughts don't have an underlying meaning nor are the meaning of something. The last two lines mean that these thoughts are everywhere where there are the right conditions. Even though these kinds of thoughts can germinate in every mind, one must be given a view of the world that won't allow it to fall for these apparently meaningful thoughts. Sadly, these are what the common people (at the time at least) have.

Although Whitman might not be referring to our current concept of cliché he is probably referring to the ideas of the masses that seem to have a meaning and to take you somewhere but guide you to nowhere. He is probably trying to make the point that because these ideas have no owner one should be careful of them because if they were truly so great a person would attempt to claim it. At the time education in the United States still needed more time to be at a comparable level to that of today. Due to this, these types of ideas have plenty of minds to take over and control. This poem captures the image of those ideas without an owner, meaning or even a reason to exist. Maybe, only to differentiate the truly original ideas and people that comes with them.

When You Have Seen It All

In poem 7 Whitman talks about birth and death, two opposites that apparently we should feel equally about. He says this here: "Has any one supposed it lucky to be born? I hasten to inform him or her, it is just as lucky to die, and I know it. I pass death with the dying and birth with the new wash'd babe…" (poem 7) This maxim means that life and death are but event and (taking from the fact Whitman is a transcendentalist) these events are part of a greater scheme that transcends everything. This idea of fate he continues in the following sentence where he said: "and am not contain'd between my hat and boots; and persue manifold objects no two alike and every one good…" (poem 7). This means that once free from earthly constraints he is able to see the greater plan that exists even if he does not completely understand it and thus he sees how earth and everything attached to it is good simply because it is part of this greater plan.

At this point we see Whitman taking the position of a very wise person and from that very high mountain unreachable to many he tells this poem to us. This, is a contrast to the first poem where he says: "…and what I assume you shall assume; for every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you" (poem 1) This means that he is bringing himself to our (the reader) level and this being the first poem in the book can be a misleading statement considering how unreachable he seems in the seventh poem.

Although the position of the author and our ability for him to reach us changes dramatically between poems this is a necessary change. Without this change explaining something like fate would be impossible. Radically different themes require an according change in tone. This reflects the way people learn about different things. Some themes must be told by an equal an others we would rather hear from a godlike voice. When he talks about his position on fate on the seventh poem he uses a voice that uses its experience in order to make itself superior to the reader and instruct him. He probably uses this device because sometimes we need someone that has seen it all to teach us something.

Indirect Style For The French

In class we discussed indirect style and how this was a feature of Flaubert's style. At first I hadn't noticed it and I took it for granted. After I saw it explained in class and tried to implement it in my short story I realized this was a new way of showing things. The beauty of it (I believed) was that it made the reader think rather than give him everything. I decided to go back to the book (in French this time) to experience this in its original language. The style was almost the same and it had a very similar effect on me. I decided to ask my French teacher what she thought about this (what I thought was a "new" and "unique") style. The answer was completely different from what I expected. She explained to me (from her experience) that the French (in what might be a rather harsh generalization) do like to use that style. In fact, she said it was rather common and used in a slightly different way on daily speech. They won't tell you the whole idea but rather expect you to infer it from the clues they give you. I don't expect this generalization to be completely true. Still, their stereotype in Europe is that of Argentineans in South America so it might not be completely false either. Could it be that this style we see in Flaubert's writing be nothing more than a reflection of the general way of expression he saw in the French people at the time?

Lost In The Bridge Between Languages

As I read through A Simple Soul both in French and in English I realized that there were some subtle differences between the original and the translation. These are things I would find very hard to translate and I understand why the person that did this would leave ambiguous. An example of this appears on the first chapter here: " … et elle quitta sa maison de Saint Melaine pur en habiter une autre moins dispendieuse, ayant appartenu à ses ancêtre et placée derrière les halles" (6). This was translated to this: "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" (Chapter 1). The word "les halles" literally means a covered market but it also refers (to an implied level) to a market place where fresh fruits and other recently harvested foods are sold. Although this omission doesn't affect style or the meaning of the sentence greatly, it proves the point that such omissions do exist even in the best translations.

There is however en element in French that is lost once it is translated on to English: the Passè Simple. The first example of this would be here: "Dès la cinquataine, elle ne marqua plus acun âge…" (7) This was translated to: "After she had passed fifty, nobody could tell her age…" (Chapter 1) Although the general meaning of this phrase remains the passé simple (Marqua) is not completely translated. Literally it would be close to using "I went" or "it marked" but in meaning it closer to using "I have gone" or "it has marked" in the sense that the former gives a different stylistic feeling. This explains why the verb in that sentence (and expression) was put as "she had passed" to attempt and give a similar stylistic feeling but passé simple is still very different to that past-tense in English. It is almost completely forgotten in a day to day language and it mostly survives in literature. Not only does using this past-tense give the impression of formality but it can also be compared to the feeling reading Shakespeare gives, by making a modern public like us understand this is a piece from another time. Although this is my attempt at an approximation of an equivalent in English such a thing doesn't exist. I thought this was very important since it made me realize that as translation goes small details like this that add to the writer's style are lost and thus we are only getting a partial idea of what the author's style was even if the meaning of the book remains the same.

Plot Controlled

While I was reading the Crying of Lot 49 wiki  I found an interesting review here. In this article it was said that the characters in Pynchon's novels (including The Crying of Lot 49) are eventually trapped in the plot they helped build. With this I realized that Oedipa was indeed trapped on the conspiracy she had created. Even after all the people that stated the play meant nothing (from an actor within the play). Even after being told this Oedipa continues her search for meaning in words and symbols that might not have any. Then, Oedipa meets with Bortz who was very knowledgeable about the Courier's Tragedy. He explained that what she saw wasn't the actual play but a version of it in which the reference or coincidence with the word Trystero was added. In the end, Oedipa realizes that Trystero was a parallel mailing system that existed with Thrun and Taxis which eventually won the mailing monopoly.

Even if that Trystero phrase in the play was a reference to the mailing system why bother? Why did Oedipa have to go to such lengths, traveling all over California, to find about a mailing conspiracy that didn't really matter? It is even possible that the W.A.S.T.E system might be slightly relevant since its people fighting against the state's monopoly over mail but why does Trystero matter? Why does that line in the play matter? I think that this is part of the way the book breaks down. Oedipa realizes that the Trystero conspiracy might be a joke made by Pierce which adds to the feeling of absence of meaning. Finally, Oedipa ends waiting for the Crying of lot 49 to find a person which might lead to more questions than answers. This whole plot is simply part of Oedipa being trapped in an endless plot that will take her from questions to more questions without a definite answer. This explanation that is given in the review of the book in the NYT takes the whole ending of the book and makes it into a single sentence. Although this ending is Pynchon making fun of himself and the book, it could also be portraying our constant search for answers which inevitably takes us to more questions. The ending of the book could be a way to make fun at how absurd that concept is.

The Collapse Begins

As the book nears its end we see how the realism that exists in the book suddenly begins to vanish. The few signs that at the beginning could be interpreted as a coincidence created by Oedipa's mind who desperately sought to find the truth about a conspiracy which didn't exist. Eventually these clues start to appear in increasing frequency until they overwhelm Oedipa. There is a point which indicates when the apparently normal mystery story starts to breakdown on itself. This is stated in here: "Either Trystero did exist, in its own right, or it was being presumed, perhaps fantasized by Oedipa, so hung up on and interpenetrated with the dead man's estate. Here in San Francisco away from all tangible assets of that estate, there might still be a chance of getting the whole thing to go away and disintegrate quietly. She had only to drift tonight, at random, and watch nothing happen, to be convinced it was purely nervous, a little something for her shrink to fix". (88) This quote is essential for the start of the book's breakdown. The first part states the possibility that Oedipa is the source to all these conspiracies and nothing that has happened so far is real. The second part states the condition that she requires for the unreality of all the previous events relating the mail conspiracy to be confirmed. Shorty after she is taken to a bar and talks to a man that introduces her to a society similar to A.A. that deals with love instead and tries to cure its members of that addiction. That would have been the last point where what we see can be interpreted as some form of reality, after that, everything in the book changes.

When Oedipa starts to see the post-horn everywhere and discovers all the W.A.S.T.E mailing system she no longer appears to be in contact with reality. The things the sees from that moment on are like a tour through a mad and irrational mind trying to find a conspiracy by searching for symbols which mean nothing and might not even be there. It is also shocking how lightly she is taking her mental state. She has created a conspiracy out of symbols and words which mean nothing (since it has been said several times to her) about a secret mail system that goes against the U.S mail system simply because is the government's monopoly. Making a conspiracy from symbols which you are told mean nothing and basing it on irrational foundations isn't just "a little something for her shrink to fix". (88) Oedipa has gone mad (or maybe was mad from the beginning), she realizes this but doesn't take it like the serious issue it is. This could be a way to portray the absurdity that exists in our world. Many times there are huge problems we take lightly and only later do we realize their importance.

The Sensitives

In chapter 4 of The Crying of Lot 49 there was a machine which could theoretically create eternal motion which theoretically is impossible. This machine only works when activated by "special" people who are called "sensitives". Supposedly these are the only ones that can make that machine work. This made me reflect on an ideal of the U.S constitution (and the ideal of many other constitutions) which is: "all men are created equal". If everyone is created equal why would there be sensitives which can do what others can't when we are supposedly created equal?

It is unlikely (but possible) that this book was criticizing this by showing some that aren't equal to others. Still, this made me think that in reality nobody is equal. We are different and have unfair advantages on some things over others. Some might be smarter while others are better at sports etc. Some might even be predisposition to live longer than others and that is an unfair advantage. Because these unfair advantages exist some people will inevitably have better opportunities than others and therefore equality at any level is impossible. Since this book is a satire to the society at the time it could be trying to show us that this principle of equality is wrong simple because it is impossible for all to be equal to one another. This books purpose is merely to describe then it doesn't give us an alternative on how to change this but I am certain there must be a possibility. The only model in which the damage of such a thing could be minimized is by making a society in which these unfair advantages aren't as critical as they are today. This is (clearly) no more than an impossible ideal because the society that we live in today has existed as it is for a long time and will most likely remain as it is.

In turn, this reminded me of The Selfish Gene which showed a very clear view on evolution and natural selection. Indifferent of whether we should be altruistic or not, natural selection will always favor those with an unfair advantage. Even if we were to base a society on nature's rules (which are the most effective and most likely to succeed in the long term) those with an unfair advantage will take over and equality is something that will be achieved by the sacrifice of those who do not possess the gene that gives them that unfair advantage. Could it be that Pynchon is simple leaving that hint of inequality in his novel to show us that it is a constant we can't ever erase?

A Cold War Satire

As I read through the book I found a paragraph that caught me and refused to let go. This occurred when Oedipa and Metzger are at The Scope talking to Mike Fallopian talking about the Peter Pinguid Society. He was telling the story of how the society began in the times of the Civil War. Its name was inspired on the first casualty of the Russia vs. U.S conflict. This is the quotation: "But that was the very first military confrontation between Russia and America. Attack, retaliation, both projectiles deep-sixed forever and the pacific rolls on. But the ripples from those two splashes spread, and grew and today engulf us all." (36) This is probably another of the author's satirical comments to the society that was around him. This book was written and published during the Cold War and this is (most likely) a reference to it. I believe that he tries to make fun of government propaganda in which Russia and the U.S are enemies and that the U.S are the good guys. It is absurd how and practically impossible than a period from the 1940's to 1900's could possibly be affected by a confrontation that occurred during the civil war that had no major impact and isn't widely known. It is especially comical how neither of the ships received any damage but it is still a mayor historical event to those of the Peter Pinguid Society.

Also, the name of the society is a joke. Peter Pinguid according to Mike Fallopian didn't go through any serious punishment but was able to live well the rest of his life simply getting rich. He wasn't truly a martyr (although according to the society he had to go over the grave punishment of sacrificing his code of honor) but a man that was able to live a decent life as a land speculator. The way Thomas Pynchon takes an insignificant person and blows him out of proportion in order to make a society based on what he thought can be interpreted as an element of his satire. These comments on the society that surrounded Pynchon at the time the book was written are consistent through the book and I expect to see more as I read on.

Understand

As I read through chapter two I found what might have been a metaphore to something very important. When Oedipa and Metzger are playing that game in which Oedipa will take off one piece of clothing for every question Metzger answers. But there is a catch. Oedipa had gone to the bathroom and dressed herself with as many layers of clothing as she could. Thus, this is what happened : "Oedipa removed a bracelet. So it went: the succession of film fragments on the tube, the progressive removal of clothing that seemed to bring her no nearer nudity . . ." (28) I saw this as a metaphor for how complex people are. This reminded of a quote from Neon Genesis Evangelion which said this: "No one can understand completely another person, it is already difficult enough understanding yourself, maybe that is why life is so interesting" (Evangelion) This two quotes are have a very similar meaning and could be even be used to explain one another.

In the Crying Of Lot 49 we try to get all the jokes and satire that happens while also trying to understand why the characters behave in such a way. Maybe that is also part of the game the author gives us, maybe not all that is there can be understood or has a meaning. This could be a way to describe how in life we try to give meaning to things that truly don't have any.

You could also see this to a more human level and it could mean (like in Evangelion) that you never truly know somebody, others will remain a mystery to us specially since many of the things we do are inexplicable to ourselves. We will always remain ignorant of true reasons behind people's actions. Still, the final part of the quote from Evangelion (which isn't said but is explicit in The Crying Of Lot 49) is that our curiosity and hunger for knowledge pushes further. We don't understand everything, but because of this there will always be something to surprise us and make us wonder.Thanks to that inability to understand and explain everything we are given a purpose. We see this in the Book as Oedipa tries to understand the conspiracy that is (or not since it might just be a hallucination) occurring around her but very possibly she will never be able to do so. In the end when we can't explain something, we should follow the example of the book and describe it, we should take pleasure from living it even if we can't comprehend what is happening completely.

The Barrier Of Reality

As I began reading the book Crying Of Lot 49 I was interested on how the division of reality and dreams dissapears. We see an example of this here: "Oedipa stood in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, spoke the name of god, tried to feel as drunk as possible. But this did not work. She though of a hotel room in Mazatlan . . ." (1) Here, we see a rapid change of scenes and actions in a matter of seconds. In that moment she changes from reality to a memorie or even just a hallucination. If you are fully concentrated on the reading (like I was) you are dragged into this completly new place for no apparent reason: that confused me. This rapid changing of focus and the a sudden change in the settting distort the vision you have on the place where Oedipa is. I think that this playful way in which the author changes the setting is a game he attempts to engage the reader in. By making it hard to picture the situation the author makes the reading more interesting and it makes this book stand out. The way in which the sitaution shifts is probably a way to interest the ready.
The way in which the author distorts our image of reality is probably there to also make us understand that it isn't something you can't truly understand completly. Maybe this is a way the author challenges us to read this book and understand it. Thanks to all of this I have been interested greatly in the book.

Battle Of The Sexes

Reproduction Today

Mothers are an essential part of reproduction. As seen in The Selfish Gene it is the method that allows genes to pass from an old body to a new one. The definition Richard Dawkins uses for this book is this: "I am treating a mother as a machine programmed to do everything in its power to propagate copies of the genes which ride inside it" (123) This definition although not absolute it is the basic programming that is given to all adult females in a species. Mother must do everything to pass as many of their genes to the next generation as possible. Humans have created an incredible opportunity for themselves in which some mothers can potentially give birth to as many offspring as time allows with food and other resources as a problem. There is a worldwide trend in which countries with a low living standard have a higher population growth rate than those with an excellent living standard. It is only a problem in developed countries that the population of those being born is dramatically less than that of those ageing and because of this other problems arise like the source for pension money. I found it very interesting how couples in developed countries decide to have less children than those of developing countries. I studied this development of populations in science and apparently education isn't the only factor. The theory behind this strange pattern is that when life expectancy for a child increases a couple sees no need in having to invest their resources on more than one or two children.

The problem is that why have only have one child when you could have ten and they would all grow to continue spreading genes? The issue isn't around sexual education or accessibility of birth control methods because in many cases there are available to the population with the least wealth. Maybe it has to do with choice. Our rational brain might not want to have many children but our irrational (genes) will. If our rational brain is busy trying to figure out what you will do tomorrow in order to survive, like in Africa or in Colombian Chocó, then your irrational brain will be able to do as it pleases and genes will do as they please. It is true that rational brains in developed countries will have to be very busy as well but there are times when we can take a break. A person in danger of starvation will dedicate every bit of his rational brain to finding a solution to his situation. At this point in human evolution we are at a crossroads. We can choose to be as civilized and rational as our brains allow but if we aren't careful it only takes a blink for the genes to take over.

To Be What We Are Not

As humans we are constantly trying to better ourselves. That is part of being that machine which is working to achieve that state of "perfection". There is a flaw however on our idea of reaching perfection. We based our society and therefore environment on ideals. Our society is made for perfect people but we remain imperfect animals. This quote shows how in essence we remain animal and how our pacts which are the basis of our society fail to maintain order: "So, even in man, a species with the gift of conscious foresight, pacts or conspiracies based on long-term best interests teetering constantly on the brink of collapse due to treachery from within. In wild animals, controlled by the struggling genes it is even more difficult to see ways in which group benefit or conspiracy strategies could possibly evolve. We must expect to find evolutionary stable strategies everywhere" (73). The governments we create are based on this type of pacts. It is not that we are treacherous by trying to break these laws but simple we are working with the ideas given to us by our genes which enter in conflict with these ideas of altruism. Taxes are an example of these altruistic ideas. We surrender part of our income in order to give something to everyone else like roads. We are reducing our (and our genes) chances of survival by giving others part of our income which could be used to buy food or other needs in bad times. Still, even though we are haunted by authority who is there to impose these altruistic laws there are people who refuse to pay taxes. We see this everywhere and it proves that to nature there is only short term.

If we continue to pretend to be what we are not society as we know it will only continue to become more corrupt. We must find a system to rule ourselves that abides the laws of nature. This will allow our species to continue evolving. This is similar to the conflict that exists between our rational and irrational parts of our brain. Our irrational being our genes' implanted behavior patterns and our rational brain the part of the brain that is given the opportunity to choose. If given the opportunity to make a rational choice most people might choose being altruistic, our irrational brain disagrees. I remember from Radio Lab's Choice that it doesn't take much to overwhelm the rational brain. This means that even if we want to be altruistic we will remain selfish. This might look like there is no way out of the situation but there is. We have been accompanied by our genes since the beginning of the species. We know them and to some extent thanks to our rational brain we can predict what they will do. If this is true then we can use this predictable selfishness to our favor and manipulate it to be altruistic. Either we adapt to our genes and follow what they say or we adapt society to manipulate our genes into making them do what we want them to do.

So How Much Power Do We Have?

Life according to The Selfish Gene exists as we know it because genes developed machines to allow the continuation of their own replication and defense from other replicating genes. Thus, we were created for the survival of genes only. The competition between genes for the available matter on which they can replicate became natural selection which leads to our existence. The shape of the survival machines has changed greatly from the original molecules that began creating more of themselves but the concept remains the same. We continue to be a mean by which genes achieve their own continuation. Generally what we do is exactly what genes want us to do. They achieve this level of control by giving us a preset goal and the farther away we are from it the more we work towards it. We see this idea here: "The 'purpose machine', the machine or thing that behaves as if it had a conscious purpose, is equipped with some kind of measuring device which measures the discrepancy between the current state of things, and the 'desired' state. It is built in such a way that the larger this discrepancy is, the harder the machine works" (51). Our brains and body are there to execute the genes wishes to continue existing. This is achieved by giving us an ideal of what life is supposed to be like and genes let us work whatever way we can to reach that ideal. Genes can't work the details of life and thanks to this we are given some freedom. Because our brains are so developed that degree of freedom has become the ability to go against what our genes tell us to do. Suicides are an example of this rebellion against nature. Genes don't want to die at least not knowing that they can continue living normally.

This freedom that given to us by genes is showed here: "But as brains became more highly developed, they took over more and more of the actual policy decisions, using tricks like learning and simulation in doing so. The logical conclusion to this trend (…) would be for the genes to have the survival machine a single overall policy instruction: do whatever you think best to keep us alive" (60). The problem with this idea of taking over the genetic instructions and disobeying them is that we would be ignoring knowledge that has been passed down for millions of years. We are the best model there is for the current state of things in the world. Any change could result in damage to the species and the gene. Should we really question our instincts when it took nature millions of years of trial and error to create them?

Immortals From Mortals

Humans are mortals and we can't do anything to change that, the only thing we can do it try to leave something behind in order to be remembered. Genes are exempt from this law since they can't die like we do. Their state is almost eternal (there are exceptions but genes useful to the continuation of a species will continue to exist indefinitely). It is very hard to get rid of a gene that can continue living in different bodies. This idea of the potential eternity of genes appears here: "another aspect of the particulateness of the gene is that it does not grow senile…" (34) This reminded me of the gods from Greek mythology all around the world. They were immortal beings and all powerful. These gods regarded humans and mortals as nothing more than something entertaining to watch as eternity went by. As described here, gods could be genes. They are all powerful in our bodies. Genes can determine everything that you are physically and most of your psychological tendencies. Genes, can even determine when and how you will die(with doing what we consider to be "morally wrong" like God). What I find interesting is that these immortal things need of mortals to exist. Without us genes can't perpetuate their existence.

I then wandered what this meant for people. I realized that this book described humans (and every other living thing) as an insignificant medium to achieve the genes immortality. Our only purpose then is simply to be effective survival machines for genes. A gene "leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way for its own ends abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death"(34). Could it be that because our purpose is so simple and unimportant (because there are plenty of other humans with our genes even if not in the same order that can carry them on) that we continue to search for a more "meaningful" end?

In Search Of Purpose

In the end of Candide Voltaire gives the idea that through hard work we are to find life bearable. Through work we are to give our life a purpose even if this work is only for us. It was truly interesting how Candide went through the complexities of philosophy were there isn't really a right answer to a rather simple conclusion. Working on the garden and living in the reality posed to them and not the impossible world of philosophy. That appeared to be the decision Candide was given. He could follow either path of positiveness (Pangloss) or Negativeness (Martin). Candide was mostly influenced by Pnagloss for he had been his life's tutor and that had not proved the best way to look at life. It was like living in a bubble that would burst in any moment. The idea of the world being the best it could be simply isn't reality.

This reminded me of the End of Evangelion. Here the main character Shinji Ikari is faced with a very hard decision. He has viewed all his life in a very pessimistic way. His life was the ideal Martin gave for a humans life: "Martin's conclusion was that man was born to suffer from the restlessness of anxiety or from the lethargy of boredom." (140) Ironically his situation is rather enviable but his views of life don't allow him to enjoy it fully. He is the opposite of Candide but instead of going in opposite directions the story lines meet. In the end both Candide and Shinji are faced with the choice of living in their bubble or in their reality. Shinji could have decided to stay in that place were all souls were one and there was neither pain nor pleasure, were he couldn't be hurt by others. A place were he would not be able to live. Candide could have remained a philosopher were he could complain all the time about the wrongdoings of humanity and never do anything. He would have never been truly sad since he would not suffer what humanity goes through directly and he would never have the pleasure of helping others directly.

What I liked about both works was that both characters decided to not allow their past pain trouble their life but decided to actively change their present. This idea repeats when there are bad times. Voltaire lived during the French Revolution while Hideaki Anno lived through a period of recession in Japan known as the "lost decade". These are two periods that I wouldn't like to experience. The French Revolution was one of the most violent periods in history. The "lost decade" was also a horrible time since all the people leaving high schools and universities in Japan could not find any jobs, many of these youths locked themselves in their rooms and refused to go out. Many of them ended with deep psychological problems. This is why this generation was called "the lost generation". Philosophy for Volataire and anime for Anno were the way people escaped from such horrible realities. What I loved about both works was that their message was to live your life and try to make it a better place. "'We must work without arguing,' said martin; 'that is the only way to make life bearable'"(144). Even if your work only makes you happy not doing anything (like Anno did for four years) will only drive closer to insanity. Both works made me think that even through the illusion of change that your hard work gives you, one can find happiness. Not mattering how futile your objective is.

Taking Evolution Into Our Hands

As I begun reading The Selfish Gene I found myself agreeing with most of the things he had said. Selfishness and lack of morality (as defined by humans) is everywhere in nature, as much as we disagree with it and demonize it. Here we see his opinion expressed about helping others in order to defend the existence of the species as a whole: "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply don't make evolutionary sense." (2) This sentence that was hard for me to digest. At first I had agreed with him almost completely but then I was shocked. It is true humans aren't altruistic beings because if we were to sacrifice the strong for the weak eventually the weak would be the only ones left and the species would end. The survival of the species as a whole depends on every person even though we might not see it because each of us carries genes that will be useful for the next generation. And who knows, maybe one day one of our genes will save humanity from a pandemic. In the end it is through selfishness that we compete with others in order to test if our genes are worthy of existing in the next generation. Selfishness exists only for survival of the species.

When it comes to what he defines as altruism it isn't necessarily true that humans are selfish in the sense that we are programmed to not care about anyone. We do care for others and having to leave someone behind must be a horrible experience. Placing others before us in such situations would be very bad for the wellbeing of the species since those with worthy genes would reduce their chances of survival in order to save those who don't deserve to pass their genes on. It is horrible, but if no one dies there is no evolution.

When I continue my reading after analyzing this phrase I came upon this quotation: "Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to." (3) What he proposes is that thorough nurturing our minds to be altruistic we should then control the process of natural selection and alter the path of evolution. This idea is completely insane. Things are the way we see them for a reason (especially evolution). As advanced as we humans believe to be we are still newborns in the terrain of higher thinking. We have invented a system in which the weak is given a second chance. We have began to mess things with natural selection. There is a final decision all humanity must make, do we wish to play God and are we ready to face the consequences of doing so. We have changed our own environment so that the world has become a Petri dish. In cities we are able to exist and reproduce without limits and all designs of humans are given a chance not mattering how useless or damaging they will be for the future of the species. This process will continue until the food runs out and then we will be forced to live in the environment we were meant to live in. Nature eventually wins all wars and humanity will be claimed back from its attempt to play civilization. This book seems like an attempt to control the natural impulses nature has given us in order to create a utopia but this won't work. The only way we might be able to continue living in this civilization is by using the genes to our favor. We must attempt to use the selfishness and other tendencies in order to mold a lasting civilization. We have seen many times that wars against nature are always futile and doing this would only prove such a thing right.

Home Is Worse

Many times we aren't thankful for what we have been given and think better of what others have. This can be useful because through that dislike towards our current situation we might find a reason to better ourselves. Sadly, we are sometimes blinded and loose our sense of what is best.

In Candide we see this when Candide arrives to El Dorado. There he encounters this Utopian society where all was truly for the best. People were altruistic and nobody lacked anything. Candide even accepts the greatness of this place here: "' It is quite true, my good fellow, that the house where I was born won't bear comparison with the mansions of this country. . .'" (82) Our home can be surpassed by many places but we tend to exaggerate this. I was not very surprised to see this same type of ideas in the NYT since they are part of humanity.

As I read through Crisis Leaves Europe in Slow Lane the author, a European depicted the economic situation of the region. Apparently it was horrible and he saw the U.S as a place where the problems were ending and as a role model. It is true that he presented us with numbers and facts that supported his ideas. Although some of what he says must be truth, he is missing parts of the whole idea. He says that because of the heavy regulations on employment in Europe and all the benefits that people are given, the european powers risk lagging behind on competitivity. Although it is true that employing someone in Europe must be costly and complicated, the benefits people are given outweigh it. Life standards are better on Europe than in America which made me think whether economic growth was worth the happiness and stability in the lives of people. This made me reflect on what Candide thought about El Dorado.

This is probably the part where Candide shows his lack of judgement. Right after saying that comparison between his home and that utopia Candide said this :". . . but still, I shall never be happy without Lady Cunégonde, and I dare say you have some mistress or other in Europe" (82). Knowingly that they would never be able to return to such a beautiful paradise Candide still wanted to continue in his search for Cunégonde. Maybe that lack of reason is our way of viewing the European economy. They might be apparently in great trouble and shrinking in size yet their society is very considerate of the individual needs of each person where as the U.S is more centered around the economic needs of the country willing to sacrifice the well being of its people for such purpose.

Satires Everywhere

After being on the class where satires were explained to us I began to see them more clearly than I did before. Candide is a satire on many aspects of life particularly positive attitudes towards life. He attempts to take this away by showing a world where those who believe that all is for the best suffer greatly as an attempt of the world to disprove their blind belief. Above all this book made me think that although not all is for the best this can be changed. If one doesn't have a passive attitude towards situations and continues to work towards a better present things will be better. This Idea of passivity appears here : " The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing. . ." (62) If people chose to they could take over and split the land evenly. This passive attitude is what made the situation in which they were bad. It possibly reflects the attitude Pangloss had over life in which everything was meant to be as it was for the best of reasons.

This Satire reminded me of another more modern satire: Neon Genesis Evangelion. That positive and passive attitude towards life as shown in this book is probably a reflection of what Voltaire saw in his days. This series is also a satire to the genre of giant robots like transformers. (Although, the plot revolves around the character's problems and the robots are a metaphor to facing problems in life) In this scene we see a cliché common to anime that there is a gifted pilot which in the first attempt masters completely the art of controlling his machine. This cliché is shattered by making the giant robot worth millions (enough to make several countries in the world go hungry in order to pay its repairs) fall face on and then get badly damaged by the "angel". It is also Satirical that in this series humans are the bad ones. (spoiler alert!)We are the ones who in our greedy search for power have began our search to become living gods. The "angels" are there to seemingly stop our plan but fail in the end. This is the video that shows the part of the satire(In order to show the entire satire viewing the whole series is necessary).

This is a short explanation of the series:

A Masterpiece Of Reason And Justice

Continuing on the satirical theme of Candide we are given a very sarcastic phrase: "The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing: that's what I call a masterpiece of reason and justice. I don't think I have ever seen such god like creatures as the reverend fathers." (62) This is probably a protest from Voltaire against the Catholic Church. At his time this was the most powerful institution of the time. It moved the beliefs of many people from different countries and it shared its power with none. Even after the appearance of Protestantism and the schism that gave birth to the Anglican Church the majority of Europeans remained catholic. This is clearly a demonstration of the problems of giving a single institution so much power. The church also had inconsistencies which if mentioned could end in a sentence to hell or getting excommunication if you were a member of the church. These are the faults that Voltaire wants to show us here: "They fight the Kings of Spain and Portugal over here and given them absolution in Europe. In this country they kill Spaniards and in Madrid they send them to Heaven" (62). These great inconsistencies are probably the target of Voltaire's satire here. Through sarcasm he shows the terrible thing the church does in order to maintain itself.

The greatest of all inconsistencies revealed in that page is within the ideology of Christianity. We are thought that Christianity is about helping the poor and accepting the life one is given in a humble manner. The church is one of the most powerful entities in the world yet it doesn't use this power for the good of humanity. Instead it is more interested in spreading its power above all things (at least as depicted here). It is able to increase its power by joining both sides of the conflict and agreeing with everybody. It also refuses to give its power to the poor who are supposedly the ones this church should be protecting. This led me to wonder why the church had such immense power then. It had obtained it through the irrationality of people and their desperation to escape the fear of death in order to continue living. Desperately people joined the church seeking salvation who obtained the promise of such thing. In the end the church is born from the lack of reason and the injustice of those who have and those who don't have.

In Love With Life

After finishing the old Woman's story I was impressed by her resilience. Not physical but rather the resilience of her soul. She was able to resist incredible tortures and treasons through her life and still she retained her integrity. We see her inability to free herself from such a horrible reality here: "I have wanted o kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life" (57). She even said that her life was "a burden one would gladly throw away" (57). Those times as described here were brutal, where war and violence ruled. (like today) There was no escape for those who were innocent and meant no harm to anybody. Even though some parts of this novel are satirical and absurd there is one part incredibly realistic: "I have met only twelve who have voluntarily put an end to their misery. . ." (57). Having so much suffering in the book makes this body count possible.

I do find the story of the old woman disturbing but the way she acted is even more so. Seeing so much suffering made me think if there was a breaking point where suffering went beyond the capacity for humans to bear. Is it possible that such love for life was a clue for insanity? Is there a point that once reached makes continuing living something absurd? Most wound heal but those as deep as showed here will most likely remain open for ever in a normal person and if they were to close a scar would cover them. Was it truly worth it to continue living in such hell to finally be able to fulfill her destiny of helping Cunégonde? Could Voltaire be trying to show us that humans can make each other reach the limit in which life is no longer worth it?

A Human Reaction

As I read chapter 11 I was shocked at the brutality of the scenes described there: "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). As horribly violent this scene was I find the old lady's response to these events heartless specially because it looked so easy for her to talk about them. She has apparently healed from the wounds that opened in her soul for witnessing such a horrible moment. Tears don't even show when she meets with her old teacher and tells him about her experience. This is the moment where she narrates her story to the man: "I told him all that had happened to me and he described his adventures as well"(54). It is completely beyond my understanding how the teacher cried more than the daughter: "'Your mother?' he cried, with tears starting to his eyes" (54)

This was a great contrast to the response to negative events the characters of Neon Genesis Evangelion have gone through. This story reminded me to the one of Asuka Langley Soryu. She is traumatized for several events related to her mother. She listened to her mother say that she wanted to quit taking care of Asuka. Not long after Asuka's mother had a very bad case of depression. She tried killing her child but failed. Finally this horror story ends with Asuka walks in her mother's corps after she had committed suicide.
The poor kid developed a serious case of narcissistic personality disorder and is haunted by memories of those days even after "blocking" them. Also, she is completely obsessed with being as independent as possible yet still a child (about 14) in the series she unconsciously looks for company and help. It is a hyperbolae of all the problem people have, but in the end she is, to some extent, an accurate description of how messed up people can become.

Which story is worse Asuka's or the old woman's in Candide is completely up to you. The truth is that I see them both as a horrible set of events that happened to innocent and harmless people. The reactions are what make these two stories different. The one in Candide showed an idealistic person who moved on with her life after loosing all that was dear to her. Most people would probably go insane at such a horrible thing happening to a dear one. (At least I would) It is a satire to the human condition since it is completely absurd a person can talk about such a painful event so easily. Asuka on the other hand represents the real way humans are. We suffer and are completely changed by our past. There are many things we are never able to overcome. This is a satire to many things and it includes all that which revolves around the human condition. The coldness in which the old lady narrated her story probably is but a continuation of this satire hidden within the already satirical ideal that "all is for the best" (20).

The Sin Of Listening

Voltaire as always trying to enforce freedom for all in his works show us once again what happens when there is no freedom of thought. This happens when Pangloss dies and Candide is severely injured when given as sacrifice in order to stop future earthquakes from occurring in Lisbon. The exact moment where this occurs is here: "Dr.Pangloss and his pupil, Candide, were arrested as well, one for speaking and the other for listening with and air of approval."(36) This showed once again the problems that exist when there is no freedom of choice. Everyone should have the freedom of thought. Pangloss wasn't saying something that would threaten the stability of a kingdom but it would rather help it remain as it is. Still, somebody disagreed with him and that person had more power than the philosopher. Because of this the philosopher had to pay with his life and his follower had to go through extreme pain.

To humanity, this means that everyone has the right to think freely. This elemental freedom is something Voltaire emphasizes greatly since it is probably something he didn't have at his time. Today there is greater freedom in this sense although not everywhere does this freedom exist. There are countries that don't tolerate opposition but is this freedom really worth it? If an article publishing new revolutionary ideas that do opposition to that of the current government, is It really worth it if this could cost the life of many? Eventually it leads us to the choice between freedom and peace. It is true that if we fight for it we will be able to gain as much freedom as we want but is this freedom really worth it? If we were to obtain it, would we make the right decisions? Since we are humans bound to making mistakes thus doing so it very probable but hopefully we will grow in the process.

The Cost Of Life

In our society there must always be a cost for everything even if it is the most precious thing there is. Voltaire touches this issue here: "'How can I be cured?' said Pangloss, 'I haven't a penny, my dear friend and there is not a doctor in all this wide world who will bleed your or purge you without a fee'" (31). Public health is something that is rather recent and I find this prove that Voltaire was ahead of his time. Such an issue shows in a subtle but clear way demonstrates that such a thing has always been present. It isn't, as many people believe, that doctors are heartless for denying care to patients who are in need (as Voltaire seems to insinuate in this part) but rather it is the cost of their own survival that doctors charge for. It is true that most doctors won't work without a fee but there is a reason for this. If you want someone to work for free then all must be given for that same price. Sadly, we are far from that utopian thought.

This image that Voltaire wants to give about doctors being cruel isn't right. What I do agree with is that the situation depicted there is very sad. Sadly it is though medicine that the price we have given to life becomes the most obvious but this doesn't mean that this is the only place where it exists. It is the sum many different situations we have created. Society has placed a price on everything and all people must pay a price for it. Doctors are sadly placed on a very uncomfortable position since the "product" they offer is the health of others. It isn't their fault that society gives it the label of product and there for a price. The same happens with food and all other essential things some might not have an access to. Could Voltaire be trying to raise these kinds of thoughts when he wrote that?

The Slaughter

War has existed for a very long time and its results never vary. Death destruction beyond the reasons we give it to be. Voltaire tries to show the horrors of war and he probably tries to show his position towards it. Here, we see the moments of war that Candide had to go through after being captured by the Bulgars: "Finally, the bayonet provided "sufficient reason" for the death of several thousand more" (25). This part just showed how bloody wars were. Using bayonets to kill all those who had survived the initial wave of bullets must have been a horrible thing to witness in those old wars. The "sufficient reason" was probably the means to kill people without a reason. To mi this simply shows that there is no reason behind all that death surrounding war, at least I believe that was what Voltaire wanted to show us with that phrase.

Continuing the massacre that occurred in that war scene we see Candide's reaction which was this: "Candide trembled like a philosopher, and hid himself as best he could during this heroic butchery" (25). Since Voltaire was a philosopher I believe this is a reflection of his reaction towards war. He trembled before and tried to hide from it yet he still experienced it and brings it as the absurd even that it is. He talked about it as a "heroic butchery" which is likely a satirical phrase. There isn't anything heroic about killing another person it is just like a butcher cutting meat. This was very shocking because in a way killing a person with your own hands must be more shocking than shooting another person. Almost, as if we were trying to make war more bearable.

Free Will Again

In the third and second chapters of Candide a recurrent theme, free will made its first appearance. When Candide is taken by the Bulgars, he decides to take off one day ignorant of the consequences of such action. When he is forced to return he is forced with this decision: "It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will and say he wanted neither; he had t make his choice. So exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet…"(24). This piece shows life in a world without free will. It certainly is a horrible sight considering this sort of occurrences still happen. Although he says he has no free will in that situation as person he can choose many things that happen to him unlike Billy Pilgrim.

He chose to leave that place maybe taking that path took a turn he didn't expect but it still proves he chose that path. When it comes to those choices we are confronted with a sarcastic part: "So exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet…" (24). He had no liberty since he only had two choices no one would like to take. This is the beginning of satire since it is absurd for someone to commit a crime he didn't know was committing and to be punished with those two horrible choices. Also, his liberty which he didn't have at that moment is present in other choices on the past. This liberty of choice which comes and goes can only be taken by other humans and although sometimes it might look like its gone forever it always returns. This could mean that no matter how many chains there are on the human spirit, its nature remains being that of freedom and because of this, none of these chains will keep it enslaved for long.

Coherence In Life

In our lifetime we are constantly living experiences that others have lived that are new to us. In order for us to avoid losing coherence in our lives we must necessarily think the same way of others situations as of our own. Epictetus talks about this in his handbook: "Someone else's child is dead, or his wife. There is no one would not say, "It's the lot of a human being." But when one's own dies immediately I is, "Alas! Poor me!""(Section 26). Here, he said through several examples that people must act the same way when an event occurs to them as when the same event occurs to a different person. The example that most interested me was when he explained the case about close family deaths. When it is another person we can be indifferent yet when someone close to us perishes we are consumed by a state of self pity. This coherence in thought is something very challenging to maintain but it is possible. We can't think of others as if they weren't human but rather we need to think of how hard it must be to suffer through such an unfortunate event. Even if we are only able to imagine the horror of the situation the effort is what makes the difference.

That ability to see through other's eyes requires training and effort to do. Many times what we see is too horrible to accept and because of this we deny it. This is the reason why we try to take an objective and cold point of view of other suffering. If we don't see their suffering then we won't suffer ourselves. Even if this can spare us some pain we will not be prepared for a similar event. In order for us to be at peace with ourselves we must go through the pain of others and if such an thing were to happen to us we will already know what lies in our path.

Dear Robert Frost,

As I read your poem I was astonished to see the way you looked at life. I don't see any choice in life, all that exists is given by fate. I can't understand where you get those ideas of choosing a path. In my handbook I explain through practical examples that what you are saying isn't true. Starting with The "play writer" and the "actor" in a play (16). Through this metaphor I try to teach others that one must know his place in life. You on the other hand, are telling people exactly the opposite that we all can be fate by choosing with a free will that doesn't exist: at least not for that.

The only thing we can change about our current situation is what we feel and what to some extent how we react to the situation. As I will explain in the following quotation only some very limited things are to be in our control: "Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions in short, whatever is our own doing." (1) You say that people are free to choose their path but the path has been carved by others. Thus it truly isn't up to us which path we choose since it was never our own doing. When you mention the The Road Not Taken as a title to you poem it just says that there is a special road for you which might be true. It might look as if the choice was yours but that road no one else took probably was predestined to be your final choice. The only thing you can really change is how you look at the path you have chosen, making it look different for you but still not changing the undeniable truth that you weren't able to choose it.

It would be against by beliefs in what I have written to allow myself to believe in such a possibility. Although I respect your belief and of those that follow you I do warn you that you are outreaching yourself. Attempting change the unchangeable will only bring self-inflicted suffering to your life. This path you falsely believe to have chosen, if continued to be looked upon with such eyes, will harm you and those that believe in you.

Sincerely,

Epictetus

Identity Not For Sale

As I continued to read through the book I crossed through a special line which reminded me of something we are inclined to forget. In section 24 the value of principles and of identity demonstrates the importance this text gives to these. It proves that we have the possibility of choosing whether we want to trade our essence for material goods. The situation is given but we can still control how we react to it. This free will is a demonstration of our choice in life between what we believe to be right and wrong. The quotation that expressed this thought the best was this: ""Then what place," he says "will I have in the city?" The one you can have by preserving your trustworthiness and self-respect" (section 24)

In our society trading our values and principles can be so tempting in order to acquire material goods. Through lies and giving our believes, the essence of our existence is lost. By this I mean that what we think and the way we act determines who we are and how we will be remembered. Is it really worth it to sell who we are and what we leave in this world to our culture? I don't see this as the right way.

In this same section there is talks about the importance of maintaining ones identity specially when it comes to peer pressure. We see this in the following quotation where we are told about the importance of being firm to influences that can take you out of course: ""Get money," someone says, "so that we may have some." If I can get it while keeping self-respect and trustworthiness and high-mindedness show me the way and I will get it." (section 24) I would be glad to obtain material benefits through diligence but not through action that will weight on my conscience. Doing so would only allow me to live an unhappy life. Thanks to this I began to understand the meaning of the manual.

It is a manual in order to live happily in an ever more corrupt society, where principles and values are given away all the time. Reading this has made me think that even if our society can be technologically advanced it has proved to make man go one step behind on evolution making us loose trust and kill each other. Our culture has replaced many important values that are essential to the substance of the community life that is necessary for the maintaining of the peace in society. If we begin to sacrifice these values no matter how much technology we posses horrible suffering will continue to plague this our world. Wars are just an example of what could happen. The development of such methods to slowly pressure people to leave their morals will unquestionably lead us to bad lives and an even worse world to live in.

The Banquet Of Life

Reading through the sections 10 to 20 on the Epictetus' the Handbook section 15 captured me. This is a truth that when said like that makes a lot of sense. Although I never thought of it like this, the statement is undeniable. It is explained in the text that one must always "behave as in a banquet" (17) since there is a feast laid before us in life where everything is served and it is a matter of passing it around the table. This is applicable to today's world. Today, there is the possibility of abundance for everybody. We have the choice of giving and receiving a plethora of everything we need yet we choose not to. Sometimes we choose not to pass the food around and with our eager selfish hands we give all, to few. Due to this many have to suffer in this world.

There is however hope for those who "do not take them but despise them, then you will not only share a banquet with the gods but also be a ruler along with them" (17). Through close reading I was able to extrapolate this: those who do not wish to take all the earthly possessions that are in the banquet will be free and thus become like gods. This is a statement to give hope to those who have given up on taking out of the banquet and now despise its contents, despise life and all its earthly attachments. The only way I can interpret these as positive things is that earthly attachments keep the soul from achieving perfection. Once the soul is perfected it will be like one of the gods. Although not much hope, since we all want our share of the "food", it shows us that there will be at least some compensation.

This banquet metaphor is something I liked a lot. It showed that there are something we can't change (like the food) and other that we can (like our attitude towards the food). This not only enforces the first teachings but it also shows the reality of life. A great amount of the suffering that we go through in our lives is caused by our attitudes and decisions. This book seems give a way to avoid our decisions and attitudes from interfering with our way to happiness. It is a manual to live and exploit to its fullest the Banquet of life.

Our Boundaries

In our lives we go through great joy and sadness but as I began reading Epictetus' the Handbook I was introduced to a new way of viewing the pain that we go through our lives. In the KJV the story of Job said that bad things happen to good people but here I was told a completely different opinion. We are the culprits of our own suffering because we judge. The moment we judge and label something to us, it will become what that label says. The best example is the one presented in the book: "For example, death is nothing dreadful (or else it would have appeared dreadful to Socrates), but instead the judgment about death that is dreadful…" (13). We judge death to be a horrible thing because it is unknown to us. If you try to think of death in an objective way (which is hard since I know I will die one day), it isn't bad but good and necessary. If there should be balance in the world everyone must die otherwise the consequences would be catastrophic. It might be good when time comes but it isn't something one should desire for another since we all have our turn to live. Anyhow, in the Bible Job was helpless which shows a great ideological difference.

In the Bible Job was helpless and all he could do is endure and try to overcome all the hardships that came to him. He didn't blame it on others (God) or himself. This proves he was an "educated person" (13). Although to some extent Job might have followed what is said in this book he didn't seem to do much to improve his situation. All he received good or bad was given by God and he just cultivated it. He knew the difference between what could or not be changed yet he reacted in a passive way to what happened. All he did was pray instead of taking action and reducing his losses. That is where the ideological difference lies. According to the Handbook we should desire only that which is given to us but, Job didn't show much desire for anything. Even if better times were in his path it wasn't something he had wanted from the beginning of his unfortunate events. Job might have not known that if he continued to endure all that pain he would be able to live his life happily.

I found it interesting how in the Bible we are told from the start to wait for God to give us things and never to desire anything since he will provide. Here we have a more aggressive approach at life in which we must desire but only that which is in our way. Although, the future and what lies in front of us is a mystery to all that which we truly believe to be in our way is something we can desire and fight to obtain. If we were to wait for God to provide many things that have occurred would be impossible or, could it be possible that God's way of providing is through our own work? All I can deduce is that we must not judge things that we believe to never cross path with us, if we do they never will since we would have chosen not to attempt following them. If we judge things that are to come, then it is likely that such events will develop as expected, this might not always be, a good thing.

War Against Nature

In the final chapter of the book, we are given a final message from the Tralfamadorians: " The Earthling figure who is most engaging to the Tralfamadorian mind, he says, is Charles Darwin- who taught that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements" (74 PDF). On the same chapter this statement is proved wrong. All the people that were killed in Dresden did they improve humanity through their death? Most of their corpses were burned and nothing was left to make their existence justified by that Darwinian principle.

The people that died at Dresden didn't die because of natural selection. They didn't have a chance to resist the bombs. Natural selection allows some to live through, the strongest. Dresden is destruction alone, with out a meaning other than death. Anyhow the Darwinian principle as adopted by the Tralfmadorians dehumanizes us even if it is the way things are meant to be for humans.

The "corpse mine"(74 PDF) has great importance in proving this point. Bodies were eventually burned and left there. They would not contribute to the evolution of humanity, they would only remain there as proof of the horror we have created. This belief contradicts the Tralfamadorian believe and shows as a great contrast on the story. However these contrasts in the book clearly show something other than irony.

These differences in the book between what should happen and the reality demonstrate the evil in war. This accentuates the book's anti-war theme. Through irony and sarcasm this books tells us a point of view of the war. It teaches us many important lessons and when I ended reading the book I wasn't sure what to take seriously and what as irony. The only thing that I was certain about was that war is a horrible thing that isn't natural and it will only harm humanity. This is certainly the message Vonnegut wanted to instill in us, how war goes against everything evolution has worked so hard to create.

Thesis Statement

In Slaughter House V there are constant hints that show the authors point of view on Billy having free will.

Will For Billy

Will is a theme that remains undecided yet with a great importance in chapter 8. In previous chapters we see the Tralfamadorian’s point of view on will. When the German decided to attack the American for something he said also showed the dangers of not accepting responsibility for our own actions. Blaming destiny for everything we do can have gigantic consequences in what we do. Here, we see more of Billy´s and Montana´s life in Tralfamadore. Although they were happy living as happy as in earth they remain without freedom. Since the aliens gave Billy and his companion the closest environment to earth we can interpret this as Earth and the lifestyle Billy had as prison. He followed a similar routine to that on earth. Billy´s attitude towards his imprisonment supports the idea that he was already used to this. There is a particular quotation that shows the lack of freedom in Tralfamadore, maybe not directly for Billy but it still applies to humanity: “She meant that their keepers were making the electric clocks in the dome go fast, then slow, then fast again., and watching the little Earthling family through peepholes. There was a silver chain around Montana Wildhack's neck.” (74)

In this quotation we see the illusion of time as a way of entrapment. It supports the idea of Tralfamadorians that humans are not able to see the fourth dimension and because of this are trapped in it. The silver chain around Montana’s neck is important because it can be interpreted as the chains that all humans have around them. Whether it is society or time, it might have some good things that make it look silver but they will remain chains. The locket with the prayer is very interesting since it suggests that the answer to this isn't absolute. Through this prayer we see that it is a matter of the situation. If the situation allows it a person might be given a choice. When we talk about Billy´s kidnap by the Tralfamadorians it shows a situation in which there is no free will. It would be reasonable to conclude that the Tralfamadorians lack the wisdom to see the difference and assume all is predestined.

The Unthinkable Present

During World War II there had been an alliance with Russia and the United States to attack the Nazis. In the end due to pressure and internal conflict the Russians had been forced to retire from the war in peaceful terms with Germany. Even then after all the souls that had been lost by the Russians to maintain the front, a war between the U.S and Russia was improbable. We see here the terms in which the U.S and Russia were during the war: "He spoke of the brotherhood between the American and the Russian people, and how those two nations were going to crush the disease of Nazism, which wanted to infect the whole world." (p.58)Although this alliance had been powerful and essential for the allied victory, it was investable for another type of war to develop the cold war.

At that moment it was unclear whether the powerful alliance between Russia and the allies was going to last. Then, all that matter was that this alliance was as decisive for the moment. The withdrawal of Russia from the war brought a new tone about the relation between the two countries that no one had expected. "'Once the Russians are defeated,' he went on, you will be repatriated through Switzerland.' There was no response. 'You're going to have to fight the Communists sooner or later,' said Campbell. "Why not get it over with now?'" (p.58) Americans showed no interested in doing such thing. They were tired and men devoid of hope and will to fight for their country. They had been captured by the enemy and their moral had been crushed. The war that followed the World War II was unthinkable to them at the moment yet to those that had to live the moments of the Cold War would have seen it coming from the history books. Sadly, it is very hard to stop something which might be obvious once it happens but before there is little chance of detecting it.

The present we live in today is unthinkable from the perspective of those who lived a couple hundred years before or even those who lived only decades before. Maybe that's a message the author want to get through. That no matter how hard you try to predict the future from the past it is almost impossible since the possibilities are too great. This supports the point the eternity of the moments in time. An event in the future or in the past will always happen the same way. Even if we know what will happen, we can't understand how it will happen because we haven't lived the necessary experiences to comprehend the chain of events that lead to that moment. Due to our lack of comprehension the vent will happen, immune to our attempts at changing it. Billy probably understands that he can´t change the future or the past mainly because of this. He sees the moments but no what lead to them and therefore he remains trapped in his own magnificent ability.

Hunger Is The Best Spice

When need comes we will do all in our power to satisfy it. If we hunger we will eat anything without caring for the taste. In Chapter 7 we see this in a more subtle way. During the war, when trapped in Dresden as workers in a syrup factory, the American soldiers had two choices: they could eat the syrup meant for pregnant women or not eat it and pass through hunger themselves. Most workers at the factory ignored the people who needed this syrup and ate it without control. American soldiers were hungry and this food was perfect for them even if "the syrup was for pregnant women"(p.57) and that with it they might have complications during their pregnancy.

In such terrible conditions the soldiers were faced with a moral decision which they barely thought about. They would rather feed themselves that help other who would really need it. We see here Billy eating syrup knowingly of for whom it was meant for, yet he was consumed by the pleasure given to him by his body: "He thrust it into his mouth. A moment went by, and then every cell in Billy's body shook him with ravenous gratitude and applause." (p.57) They had two reasons for eating the syrup without much visible remorse. They didn't know the people and didn't care about them. Those were enemy pregnant women and the children they would have would be soldiers in a future war. If anything they were doing the future generations a favor by not allowing those unborn children to fill the ranks of an army for a future war. Since they didn't know the person they were taken the food from they had no bond with them and therefore would be guiltless of causing any damage.

There is a third reason which is the animal inside all of us. That part which we ignore when times are good and we need very little. When there is scarcity of anything we begin to only care about ourselves, forgetting about all the things our society tells us are important like caring for future generations. That is probably a program embedded deep down our subconscious which appears for us when we need it. That animalistic part is what we desperately try to eliminate since we are constantly told that it is a bad thing but that is what keeps us alive. If it weren´t for that program which is hated so much, humanity wouldn´t be here as we know it. After this chapter I began to reconsider if the values and morals we are constantly exposed to in our society were good. Could it be that we are trying to build our culture on an utopist thought that this world will never tolerate? Should we fight against what our body says to be good? Could our hunger for something distort our vision of reality?

In Search For Irony In Revenge

I remember from class that a great amount of this book is ironical. Some of it can't be taken seriously because it would make the book loose its true meaning. Starting with the story about who was supposedly writing this book and why. In the first chapter the author of this book claims that he wrote a war book and a funny book. This is a combination of both since it is taking us to the bombing of Dresden but from a creative point of view, a soldier that can travel in time. Of all the ironical statements that are in the book one was worth discussing. It wasn't as obvious as "Everybody gets a little something from war" (p.40) but it has a meaning which took me some time to understand completely. This is the statement: 'Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is-' said Lazzaro, 'it's revenge.' (p.49)

Without the context of the book this statement might be taken literally since revenge can have its bright side. When this is said Lazzaro is talking to Billy Pilgrim. Lazzaro has sworn to kill Billy in revenge for the death of Roland Weary. The Ironical part here is soon after this conversation, Billy is transported to the future and experiences the moments previous to his death (which was triggered by Lazzaro who killed him in order to fulfill his promise). This is an example of one of the messages the author wants to make sure we get from this book. Revenge might be good especially for he who is giving it to others, but it can't be "the sweetest thing in life" because it ultimately will bring death and suffering.

Lazzaro was a person who lived for revenge and tried to give it to give to as many people as he could, for any reason he found fit. I doubt Billy was truly involved in Roland Weary's death because he was in a different car and because Billy was able to extend Roland's life a little. If Billy would have continued with the other two "musketeers" all of them would have been killed by the Germans. Lazzaro is person who is blinded by hate and goes after Billy many years later when he is finally an important person capable of inspiring millions and change the way people looked at things. This is why revenge will never bring justice. If there is no justice there is no peace and without peace there is war. War is death and because of this revenge can only be the most horrible thing in life.

Op-ed: Utopian Nightmare

Those who belive in the possibility of a Utopia are those whom I can't stand. That belief is something that is completly irrelevant, a theory that doesn't apply to our reality. I can't stand people who have belief in this incredibly unlikely possibility. They are blinded by the nice and shiny things our society throws at us in order to distract us from our reality. I see them as thos who are lost looking for a golden city that we should be able to see right now if it were possible.

This kind of belief in such an unreachable ideal as this can be compared with Ishmael. He said that most of the time we are going down in a freefall with out noticing until we actually crash. Thinking that humans are capable of achiving the standards our society puts on to us is very naive. We are slightly above animals in some skills but most of our instincts and tendencies remain the same. This makes it imposible for a utopia as our society describes it to occur.

The summer reading books are very relevant in this theme. They show the desperation we are cough in and desperately trying to escape by ignoring it. Thus, thes books presented to us with a vision of our present and the possibilities that are more likely to happen in the future. . In Clockwork Orange for example, we see how people lost their will to choose evil. When people's lives are on the line using this system is the only true way of of unsuring that no other man would hurt them. It was in the utopian ideas of freedom that the oposing party used, through which this very effective method of saving lifes was eliminated. So in the is this utopic idea of freedom worth it?

During our lives we have several factors that limit the choices we have. These choices include choosing the college you want to attend or simply buying a chocolate. To do such actions you need certian requirements wether its funds or merits. Those who don't meet the requirements have their freedoms reduced. We see that society has transformed the ability to choose into a product we need to buy. If we had the posibility to stop those who take other freedom by taking their freedom to choose evil is that a sin? To those who have utopian ideals for humanity every should choose good of their own will but at the cost of so many lives is such a thing really possible? It isn't and to wait for it to happen by giving those who have done so many crimes a second chance is a position that will harm all. People can't be expected to do good on their own.

A utopia is a place in which everything is perfect and people live in peace because they choose to. The last four words of this definition of Utopia are the great flaw that bothers me. The greatest error of our current system and others like comunism is that people will continue to work and be good with out a watchful eye on them. This is a lie. Even if there is a majority of the public that is good, from either fear of the law or because they wish to be righteous, that won't stop those willing to do harm. This minority that harms others can affect the great majority willing to do good. That great majority of good doers can change unespectedly if people in the society are faced with discomfort or death. This is because people will usually turn to crime and inmoral actions when it is necesary. Those who have the utopian ideals of our society can't accept that there is evil in all of us waiting to be awakened.

Those who choose to continue believing in those distracting baits our culture lays in front of us fail to see the harsh truth of the world. It isn't wether people are born or are made evil but that we can all turn to it if the condition makes it necesary. This inability to see the darker spots in humanity is what keeps us from evolving into a better society. Until we accept that there is evil in all of us and continue believing in the possibility of a utopia where people are all good society will remain falling until we crash.

"On Many" Comment

This Blog talked about the right register to use many on. (I like to see that what I learn in class is on other places other than works written by the class or for the class) The reference to the King James Bible was very interesting since a text that was written so long ago is still used today as a guideline for English. This proved to me even further the importance of all the text we read in class. Although some might not be as emblematic as the K.J.B. they teach us ho to write.

I really disliked the examples given at the beginning of the blog because although to some extent one can extrapolate from the sentence what kind of context and audience it has, it is still important to give a context because I felt like some of those simple phrases might have been used in a more formal register like "I have seen many hybrid cars in Wellington."

In the end I completely agree with the conclusion that it is a question of style rather than one of grammatical error.

Who Made Who?

As I was reading chapter five I came across this particular quote which is very interesting to analyze. It is a completely new perspective on the Gospel that even while studying las year I failed to see. "The visitor from outer space made a gift to Earth of a new Gospel. In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had. He still got to say all the lovely and puzzling things he said in the other Gospels. So the people amused themselves one day by nailing him to a cross and planting the cross in the ground. There couldn't possibly be any repercussions, the lynchers thought. The reader would have to think that, too, since the new Gospel hammered home again and again what a nobody Jesus was. And then, just before the nobody died, the heavens opened up, and there was thunder and lightning. The voice of God came crashing down." (p.39)

This view of life is somewhat ironical and from a very detached point since Tralfamadorians and Billy were able to travel or see the fourth dimension freely death was no longer something to fear. The eternity of those moments was all that mattered so people were eternal and thus they don't require the salvation that is given by our religion. This reminded me of an episode in Cowboy Bebop which dealt with religion and God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acW-axefwaM

In this video we see the most relevant point of the episode which says that people created God. According to it we did this to find hope, a shred of light in such a hostile environment we have created for ourselves. This light is death, the moment we are freed from this world. If we were good during our lives then we should go to heaven and enjoy eternal peace.

Certain patterns of or society are seen in the Bible that suggest some of the corruption of our society stained the Bible to some extent. We see these continue to repeat themselves on our society. The two who died in such a painful way beside Jesus were a side story and not given much importance. Jesus on the other hand, was the center of attention. Similarly when a king dies the entire kingdom he rules mourns it but when a peasant father to many dies it is barely noticed.

All death should be something that makes us sad yet it rarely happens when it is people who don't have connections. This sort of corruption from our society that has become part of the image of God is usable as proof that we were the ones that created God. We tried to make him and what he did perfect from our standards but some of our society fused with that Utopian ideal and caused this.

Even if we started to think like creationists, and decided God made us all then what would be the divine logic behind making a situation that can be interpreted in such a way? Only those who wrote the Gospels could be able to explain such a situation. If God truly were as righteous as the Bible continually says then why did he show such anger when his son was killed if all Jesus taught about was forgiveness? Only God know.

Like Bugs In Amber

As I read through chapter four I was shocked at the way Tralfamadorians look at life. Not because it isn't very fun having no choice over one's decisions but because it might be true. It is possible that the author wants to think if free will really exists.

The part in which we are first introduced to the concept of having not free will is here: " Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?' 'Yes.' Billy in fact, had a paperweight in his office which was a blob of polished amber with three ladybugs embedded in it. 'Well, here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why.'" (p.28)

Billy has probably realized that he has no free will before the Tralfamadorians captured him because he had traveled through time and probably has already realized that he can't change anything.

Before the aliens coming for Billy it there could have been discrepancies over if Billy really had free will he just didn't remember change anything because he had always remembered it that way. After their visit they state that in all the habitable planets with life that they know, in none is there "talk of free will"(p.31)

This brings up the question if we have free will. Is it possible that we are unable to change the events that will happen? There is no way of knowing since we can't look into the future like Tralfamadorians. This illusion of free will is instilled in to our subconscious by media, if we weren't given this feeling of certainty then our society might collapse. People would loose their their desire to continue working or attempting to better themselves. Everything would suddenly stop and the most horrible thing about having everything predestined is that if such an event were to happen it would be predestined.

It could be associated to the matrix because in the end Neo was the chosen one from the beginning of the story and although the illusion of choice was given to him there might have never been any. It could be plausible that our destination is predestined in history, heaven or hell but the path we choose to take there is up to us.

The Time Prison

As I read through the chapter I realized that even with Billy's amazing powers to move through his life, he always ended up back in the war. He always goes back there to continue telling the story of what he lived in it and when he became unstuck in time. Even if Billy can´t consciously use his time travel abilities maybe some part in him triggers them like extreme horror or disgust. When he is in the war he sees the rabbi that "had been shot through the hand. " (p.20)

This is a scene most people would attempt avoiding or forgetting. Billy reacted in a different way. Even if it isn't said explicitly in the book it is very likely Billy might have wanted to go to a place of peace, where he could feel home. Incredibly the next scene provides just that. We see Billy in the most common and peaceful places there are, an optometrist office. "Billy traveled in time, opened his eyes, found himself staring into the glass eyes of a jade green mechanical owl. The owl was hanging upside down from a rod of stainless steel. The owl was Billy's optometer in his office in Ilium." (p.20)

I doubt that it is a coincidence for such a gruesome scene would be followed by such a peaceful one. We see this exact same pattern in the end of the chapter. Billy trapped with all the other american soldiers living in such horrible conditions and he being in such a particularly disgusting situation followed by his tramalfadorian kidnap. I haven't read beyond this point yet but I guess it wasn't such a horrible moment. After all they were peaceful beings that were incredibly more advanced than humanity.". Billy Pilgrim nestled like a spoon with the hobo on Christmas night, and he fell asleep, and he traveled in time to 1967 again-to the night he was kidnapped by a flying saucer from Tralfamadore."(p.26)

It is true that we might not have Billy's gift of being able to escape from his living nightmares by have a lucky strike and leaving those horrible moments instantly but we do have similar defensive mechanism similar to those. If an event is too traumatic we simply ignore it and live on with our lives. I think that Billy is showing us a part of human nature. He is showing us by example that it is the nature of humanity to avoid the horrible truths. People would rather live in a cloud where everything is perfect than in the real world for the simple reason that it is too hard to accept it and understand our reality completely with out being mentally harmed. Could it be that our society has so many horrible truths that we live our lives ignoring them with leaving all those suffering them to live in pain? The example of these horrors shown here is war but there are many others we are unconscious of which might be even worse than war. Maybe because of this Billy tries to escape that moment desperately even if he isn't completely knowing of these attempts he sometimes is successful and escapes for a moment but inevitably returns. He does this because he has live what happened at that point in the war. Even if the ours on that train are eternal he will be trapped in there until the time for him there has passed. That is why that particularly horrible moment in war was like a time prison for Billy one that not even with his time traveling powers he could escape.