The first act of Uncle Vanya describes a scene outside a country house where various characters depict their problems. Astrov, the doctor says he has never had a day of rest ever since he arrived to the region. He has to work all day with little reward and for this his emotions have “dulled” a little. Uncle Vanya has nothing in his life, he doesn’t have work and is exasperated with the Professor living in his home. All the characters talk about their lives and problems, yet there is a feeling of routine amongst them, a feeling of lost hope, “will they remember and have a kind word for us? No, they won’t, nurse!”(Act 1 pg 165) Despite this, the scene seems extremely normal, no strange occurrences happening or new developments in the house. This is what makes this first act the more interesting. Will the play depict life realistically or might it perhaps focus on a single aspect of life? Will it show bottled feelings? Might it perhaps criticize the monotonies of our lives?
My first impressions of the play are varied. I feel the play will inevitably use realism as its tool. In the first Act nothing happens, just ordinary small talk that we might see in any home. What will the importance be of realism in the play? In Seize the Day, Bellow used realism to contrast Wilhelm’s feeling to what surrounded him, as well as to give emotion that intangible feeling only a person who has had it understands. How will Chekov use realism? As the characters talked heavily of their emotions, some of them ones that I would not have mentioned in public leads me to think that Chekov’s realism will focus on emotions rather than description or detail. Will the story however, stay in relative routine or will there be a major event that will become the center of the play?
As I read the first act I saw my own family, friends and community. Most of us talk about meaningless things with little relevance, much in the same way the characters of the play talked about various subjects and events. At the same time however, the characters of the play expressed some deep emotions that I usually don’t hear amongst my peers. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is keeping all your emotions bottled up good or will it force you to explode? In the play however, the characters seem to be reluctant to take any action towards their emotions which basically negates the effects of their openness. How this theme will develop throughout the play will be very interesting to me.
domingo, 18 de mayo de 2008
Betrayal and Destiny -- Macbeth reflection
Macbeth was Shakespeare’s second play I ever read and I was really excited in reading it. This play has marked so many aspects of western culture such as the view of witches around a cauldron, and is one of the most famous works of betrayal. For this reason I really looked forward to the play, and now that I have read it I really liked several themes in the play.
The play has many themes, one of them is betrayal. The play begins with the treachery of the Thane of Cawdor to the Scottish crown. Macbeth is rewarded for his loyalty to Duncan by being given lordship over Cawdor after the traitor has been executed, yet quite ironically the new Thane will continue the betrayal trend. Shakespeare clearly used this to show how treachery can come from anyone, even if they have proven loyal always. In fact, the betrayals in the play come from the most unexpected sources for the victims. “I am his kinsman and his subject, strong both against the deed; then, as his host, who should against his murderer shut the door, not bear the knife myself. “ (Act I, sc. Vii, 13) Duncan might have suspected from anyone but Macbeth, who just risked his life in his own name and received a new title. Macbeth betrayed Banquo, his closest friend and companion in war. We can also see how Ross, one of Macbeth’s closest counselors, leaves to favor the British. Though not comparable not Macbeth’s betrayal, it is still one. This theme reminded me of the Godfather’s famous axiom, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Only in the play we could write it as “Your friends are close, but your enemies even closer”. This theme is also very true in human nature. We as animals always tend to think of personal benefit first, no matter from who it comes or who it affects. As a student we hope many times that in an essay or test others will do worse than you so their mistakes highlight your traits in writing. Jealousy also brings betrayal as we want to gain what other have, yet we are often incapable of doing the effort. Despite being written in 1606, Macbeth still depicts betrayal in humans perfectly. Such a characteristic trait for humans is unchanging throughout centuries of human development.
A second theme in Macbeth is destiny. This is shown through the Weird Sisters as their predictions always occur. This all begins even before we hear about Macbeth in the opening scene of the play, where the witches begin plotting their meeting with Macbeth. “When the battle’s lost and won.” (I.i.4) Without realizing it, we are being told a prediction of the future battle that will occur in the second act. When Macbeth meets the sisters he is told he will become Thane of Cawdor and afterwards king, but here is where the destiny debates comes in, had Macbeth not spoken to the Weird Sisters would he have killed Duncan? He would have probably become Thane of Cawdor, but maybe he would have stayed only that. We don’t see any ambition to become king in Macbeth in these initial scenes. Did the Witches influence determine Macbeth’s future or did it simply announce an already determined fate? The same occurs with the three apparitions in Act 4, Scene 1 where they say to Macbeth to beware of Macduff and showed him his safeguards from harm, “For none of woman born shall harm Macbeth.” (IV.i.91) Had the sisters not warned him about Macduff, perhaps Macbeth would have spared his family. Had he not been sure Birnam Wood would not move, would he have taken action against the British before they became a real threat? The issue of predestination is an ever-present thought in humans. Why are we in this Earth? Do we have a purpose? Shall we create our own purpose? Is there someone or something that controls what happens to us or is it our own making? The Weird Sisters perfectly depict this doubt as we see them manipulating Macbeth, yet they do not seem to gain anything out of the whole play.
Perhaps the greatest trait in Macbeth is his development as a human. In fact, it wasn’t development but decadence. Macbeth begins the play as a loyal, brave soldier who fights for the Scottish crown. He still remains that way until the first murder. He doubts Lady Macbeth’s plotting, realizing the terrible thing betrayal and murder is. His own wife says Macbeth is a good person, maybe too good, “Yet do I fear thy nature; it is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness” (I.v.17) He takes several scenes in the play to finally murder Duncan and we see his moral struggle throughout this process. Yet after the murder, Macbeth changes. Banquo’s murder he plans in a single scene, and Macduff’s murder he plans in a single phrase “Thou shalt not live, that I may tell pale-hearted fear it lies, and sleep in spite of thunder.” (IV.i.95) This way we see how Macbeth turns more evil and evil, quickly leaving Lady Macbeth behind, who was originally the mastermind of their plot. Macbeth fights against everything until he is killed by Macduff, Lady Macbeth goes crazy because of her murder and betrayal and that leads her to suicide. Macbeth has become so cold that when he hears of her death, he simply says, “She should have died hereafter.” (V.v.20) As I see it, there is no return from evil, Lady Macbeth ended up dead because of her guilt and Macbeth remained evil until the end of his life.
Overall, Macbeth was a superb play to read and analyze and it has remained a valid way to portray human nature after 400 years of its creation.
The play has many themes, one of them is betrayal. The play begins with the treachery of the Thane of Cawdor to the Scottish crown. Macbeth is rewarded for his loyalty to Duncan by being given lordship over Cawdor after the traitor has been executed, yet quite ironically the new Thane will continue the betrayal trend. Shakespeare clearly used this to show how treachery can come from anyone, even if they have proven loyal always. In fact, the betrayals in the play come from the most unexpected sources for the victims. “I am his kinsman and his subject, strong both against the deed; then, as his host, who should against his murderer shut the door, not bear the knife myself. “ (Act I, sc. Vii, 13) Duncan might have suspected from anyone but Macbeth, who just risked his life in his own name and received a new title. Macbeth betrayed Banquo, his closest friend and companion in war. We can also see how Ross, one of Macbeth’s closest counselors, leaves to favor the British. Though not comparable not Macbeth’s betrayal, it is still one. This theme reminded me of the Godfather’s famous axiom, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Only in the play we could write it as “Your friends are close, but your enemies even closer”. This theme is also very true in human nature. We as animals always tend to think of personal benefit first, no matter from who it comes or who it affects. As a student we hope many times that in an essay or test others will do worse than you so their mistakes highlight your traits in writing. Jealousy also brings betrayal as we want to gain what other have, yet we are often incapable of doing the effort. Despite being written in 1606, Macbeth still depicts betrayal in humans perfectly. Such a characteristic trait for humans is unchanging throughout centuries of human development.
A second theme in Macbeth is destiny. This is shown through the Weird Sisters as their predictions always occur. This all begins even before we hear about Macbeth in the opening scene of the play, where the witches begin plotting their meeting with Macbeth. “When the battle’s lost and won.” (I.i.4) Without realizing it, we are being told a prediction of the future battle that will occur in the second act. When Macbeth meets the sisters he is told he will become Thane of Cawdor and afterwards king, but here is where the destiny debates comes in, had Macbeth not spoken to the Weird Sisters would he have killed Duncan? He would have probably become Thane of Cawdor, but maybe he would have stayed only that. We don’t see any ambition to become king in Macbeth in these initial scenes. Did the Witches influence determine Macbeth’s future or did it simply announce an already determined fate? The same occurs with the three apparitions in Act 4, Scene 1 where they say to Macbeth to beware of Macduff and showed him his safeguards from harm, “For none of woman born shall harm Macbeth.” (IV.i.91) Had the sisters not warned him about Macduff, perhaps Macbeth would have spared his family. Had he not been sure Birnam Wood would not move, would he have taken action against the British before they became a real threat? The issue of predestination is an ever-present thought in humans. Why are we in this Earth? Do we have a purpose? Shall we create our own purpose? Is there someone or something that controls what happens to us or is it our own making? The Weird Sisters perfectly depict this doubt as we see them manipulating Macbeth, yet they do not seem to gain anything out of the whole play.
Perhaps the greatest trait in Macbeth is his development as a human. In fact, it wasn’t development but decadence. Macbeth begins the play as a loyal, brave soldier who fights for the Scottish crown. He still remains that way until the first murder. He doubts Lady Macbeth’s plotting, realizing the terrible thing betrayal and murder is. His own wife says Macbeth is a good person, maybe too good, “Yet do I fear thy nature; it is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness” (I.v.17) He takes several scenes in the play to finally murder Duncan and we see his moral struggle throughout this process. Yet after the murder, Macbeth changes. Banquo’s murder he plans in a single scene, and Macduff’s murder he plans in a single phrase “Thou shalt not live, that I may tell pale-hearted fear it lies, and sleep in spite of thunder.” (IV.i.95) This way we see how Macbeth turns more evil and evil, quickly leaving Lady Macbeth behind, who was originally the mastermind of their plot. Macbeth fights against everything until he is killed by Macduff, Lady Macbeth goes crazy because of her murder and betrayal and that leads her to suicide. Macbeth has become so cold that when he hears of her death, he simply says, “She should have died hereafter.” (V.v.20) As I see it, there is no return from evil, Lady Macbeth ended up dead because of her guilt and Macbeth remained evil until the end of his life.
Overall, Macbeth was a superb play to read and analyze and it has remained a valid way to portray human nature after 400 years of its creation.
Breaking or Remaking? -- Seize the Day
How much can a man take? What does it take to break a full grown man into nothing? After Tommy has been conned out of his last life savings by Dr. Tamkin and has fought with his father one last time, he finally burst into tears at a stranger’s funeral. He cries for everything that has happened to him and maybe a little for what the future has in store for him. Yet those tears do not seem desperate or hopeless, “It poured into him where he had hidden himself in the center of a crowd by the great and happy oblivion of tears. He heard it sank deeper than sorrow, through torn sobs and cries towards the consummation of his heart’s ultimate need.” (pg 114) Crying brought Wilhelm a pause in his life, at that moment the only thing that mattered was letting everything out until there was nothing left. After he had shown all his pains and sorrows, after reaching the very bottom of his emotional state, those “oblivion of tears” could not take anything else from him, they sank “deeper than sorrow”. Only thing left would be to climb, to climb back into life. The cleansing cry left Wilhelm with hope only, and hope without frustration or fear might permit him to finally find happiness. In the end we can see that Tommy’s breaking point was in fact a remaking of himself, a cold shower that might bring him back to life.
I think that Seize the Day’s most valuable lesson came in that instant where Tommy began to cry and think of only that. At that very instant, his whole self thought about crying, about letting everything out. He seized that moment and took everything he could from it. That is a very valuable life lesson. We need to utilize every second we have on this earth to learn and do as much as we can. Grasp every single moment we possibly can, not dwell on the past like Dr. Adler with his petty resentment or fear the future like Wilhelm throughout the novel. “The past is no good to us. The future is full of anxiety. Only the present is real- the here and now. Seize the day.” (pg. 62)
After reading this novel, I’m finding that idea, the mentality to grasp the present, very convincing. It reminded me of the movie, The Peaceful Warrior in which the main character is taught precisely that. After watching that movie I tried practicing this. In a class, in a sport, in a simple conversation, I gave myself 100% to the moment, did not care about the future or analyze the past. Just for that moment, I felt great freedom. Before I thought I was free, but after having that feeling I realized I was tied down by the past and the future. That feeling of focusing 100% on a moment felt like an hour of sunshine while in prison. It was refreshing and even inspiring, but after the moment passed, I went back to prison. I went back to the past, I tried to look into the future and I was incarcerated again. That is the major feeling I got from this book and I hope to revive that hour of sunshine throughout my life.
I think that Seize the Day’s most valuable lesson came in that instant where Tommy began to cry and think of only that. At that very instant, his whole self thought about crying, about letting everything out. He seized that moment and took everything he could from it. That is a very valuable life lesson. We need to utilize every second we have on this earth to learn and do as much as we can. Grasp every single moment we possibly can, not dwell on the past like Dr. Adler with his petty resentment or fear the future like Wilhelm throughout the novel. “The past is no good to us. The future is full of anxiety. Only the present is real- the here and now. Seize the day.” (pg. 62)
After reading this novel, I’m finding that idea, the mentality to grasp the present, very convincing. It reminded me of the movie, The Peaceful Warrior in which the main character is taught precisely that. After watching that movie I tried practicing this. In a class, in a sport, in a simple conversation, I gave myself 100% to the moment, did not care about the future or analyze the past. Just for that moment, I felt great freedom. Before I thought I was free, but after having that feeling I realized I was tied down by the past and the future. That feeling of focusing 100% on a moment felt like an hour of sunshine while in prison. It was refreshing and even inspiring, but after the moment passed, I went back to prison. I went back to the past, I tried to look into the future and I was incarcerated again. That is the major feeling I got from this book and I hope to revive that hour of sunshine throughout my life.
miércoles, 14 de mayo de 2008
Hotel Society: Five Gilded Stars - Seize the Day
Seize the Day is set in 1950’s New York City. Tommy Wilhelm lives in Hotel Gloriana in which his father also lives. The hotel is a luxurious, upper class residence with many retirees living their final years in a comfortable place. Tommy however, is in the middle of his life and living a very different life from the rest of the inhabitants of the building, or at least it seems that way. Tommy is jobless, in economic turmoil, his last savings are at steak and his father is disappointed in him. He is living a contradiction, he is broke and under a lot of pressure while he is living in luxury and apparent tranquility. He appears to be just as anyone else in the building, worry-free and personally calm. Just to maintain this appearance he invests his last savings into a stock market entrepreneurship. “Thus Wilhelm had had to pretend at the outset that his interest in the market was theoretical.” (pg 57)
As the reader knows what goes on inside Wilhelm’s head, he can find great contrast amongst the vivid descriptions of the novel with the reality going inside Wilhelm. “Between white tablecloths, and glassware and glancing silverware, through overfull light, the long figure of Mr. Perls went away into the darkness of the lobby.” (pg 39) Such a vivid description of the setting creates a big contrast with the frustration and anger going through Tommy’s head at the time. The author did this in order to enhance the theme of personal problems and how humans hide them. This impressed me even more as the author did not invent a location that would clearly contrast with Wilhelm’s emotions, but Bellow blended his intentions with realism to make the novel flow easily and not force contrasts into the reader’s mind.
As I continued reading the book I noticed how many other people had problems just as Wilhelm. Dr.Tamkin probably has many financial problems and is a simple con artist, yet he seems very stable and calm. Very similarly to Wilhelm, Tamkin hides his troubles from society. This made me wonder if everyone in the Hotel had troubles just like them, and I believe it is so. Everyone has their own problems but generally they are hidden from society. Hotel Gloriana represents society and its gilded appearance. Just like a gilded piece of jewelry the outside looks beautiful and powerful, like the Gloriana’s lobby. The inside of society, its individuals are troubled and wear masks hiding their problems. They are the very people who live in the Hotel. I can greatly relate to Wilhelm as I hide my emotions from most people. Why I do it, I don’t know but probably it is to avoid being hurt by others. I also feel that if I trust only a few people with my real emotions it makes those people all the more important to me and my emotions much stronger and worth feeling, rather than losing interest in them as everybody knows them making them lose their true meanings.
As the reader knows what goes on inside Wilhelm’s head, he can find great contrast amongst the vivid descriptions of the novel with the reality going inside Wilhelm. “Between white tablecloths, and glassware and glancing silverware, through overfull light, the long figure of Mr. Perls went away into the darkness of the lobby.” (pg 39) Such a vivid description of the setting creates a big contrast with the frustration and anger going through Tommy’s head at the time. The author did this in order to enhance the theme of personal problems and how humans hide them. This impressed me even more as the author did not invent a location that would clearly contrast with Wilhelm’s emotions, but Bellow blended his intentions with realism to make the novel flow easily and not force contrasts into the reader’s mind.
As I continued reading the book I noticed how many other people had problems just as Wilhelm. Dr.Tamkin probably has many financial problems and is a simple con artist, yet he seems very stable and calm. Very similarly to Wilhelm, Tamkin hides his troubles from society. This made me wonder if everyone in the Hotel had troubles just like them, and I believe it is so. Everyone has their own problems but generally they are hidden from society. Hotel Gloriana represents society and its gilded appearance. Just like a gilded piece of jewelry the outside looks beautiful and powerful, like the Gloriana’s lobby. The inside of society, its individuals are troubled and wear masks hiding their problems. They are the very people who live in the Hotel. I can greatly relate to Wilhelm as I hide my emotions from most people. Why I do it, I don’t know but probably it is to avoid being hurt by others. I also feel that if I trust only a few people with my real emotions it makes those people all the more important to me and my emotions much stronger and worth feeling, rather than losing interest in them as everybody knows them making them lose their true meanings.
martes, 6 de mayo de 2008
Dread? Frustration? Seize the Day
In the first two chapters of Seize the Day, I saw something very different from other books we have read so far. We saw in great depth what the main character’s feelings, problems and realities were. Tommy Wilhelm is a middle-aged man during the depression years who lives in the same hotel as his father. Tommy is quite broke and his father is very wealthy, but their relation is not good. Tommy quit his studies to pursue a career as an actor, but failed miserably. His father never supported this idea and as Tommy changed his name for a more artistic one, his father never really forgave him. Despite this, the two ended up living in the same hotel in New York. As his father did not seem to mind about his problems, Tommy sought different ways to pay his children’s education and other bills. An acquaintance, Dr. Tamkin, told him about stock market speculation and Tommy gave him his last savings to spend. To his frustration, lard prices (the commodity he invested in) keep falling. In the beginning of the story, Tommy feels something bad is going to happen and he can only wait for it to do so. He receives his mail and finds some bills his wife sent him. They are not living together, but Catherin won’t divorce unless she gets an illogical amount of things, because of that Catherine is practically bleeding Tommy of all his money. As he sees these bills, he enters the dining room and meets his father for breakfast. They begin an uncomfortable conversation that ranges from many subjects, but ultimately ends with Tommy’s personal problems.
This book uses a different approach to show its message than previous books from Pynchon or Vonnegut. Bellow attempts to depict emotions, characters and settings as realistically as possible in order to make it plausible for the reader to relate to the events that are occurring. The opening phrase, “When it came to concealing his troubles, Tommy Wilhelm was not less capable than the next fellow.” (pg 1) This made a great impact on me initially, yet it gained strength as I read on. The phrase carries a simple meaning at first, humans tend to hide their true emotions, and it’s natural. However, as I read on it made a deeper impact as we saw the terrible problems Tommy has with his father, with money, and with himself. It made me reflect on my own life, on how I hide my true emotions and of how others hide them too. It made me wonder how deeply I know the people around me and why I didn’t really care about them. Further, I thought about the reason of this, why did humans stop expressing their feelings to others and bottled them up inside? Was it money and tradition? That reminded me of Tommy’s father. “It made Wilhelm profoundly bitter that his father could to him with such detachment about his welfare.” (pg 8) In that old man’s tradition, one should not speak of personal problems, but seem calm and secure always. As I read this I thought of my father who tends to be a quiet man, and I wondered if I really knew him thoroughly.
Besides this, Bellow also makes the reader feel tied to the novel by the description of emotions he writes. There are times a single word cannot accurately describe a human emotion and Bellow recognizes this. In these cases he magnificently describes an emotion: “He was aware that his routine was about to break up and he sensed that a huge trouble long presaged but till now formless was due.” (pg 2) This feeling cannot be described in a single word. Dread, frustration, or fear just are not accurate enough. If I share this feeling, I’d describe it as a tidal wave falling upon only you. These descriptions that words cannot fully describe yet as a human we grasp almost perfectly are a great characteristic of the novel.
This book uses a different approach to show its message than previous books from Pynchon or Vonnegut. Bellow attempts to depict emotions, characters and settings as realistically as possible in order to make it plausible for the reader to relate to the events that are occurring. The opening phrase, “When it came to concealing his troubles, Tommy Wilhelm was not less capable than the next fellow.” (pg 1) This made a great impact on me initially, yet it gained strength as I read on. The phrase carries a simple meaning at first, humans tend to hide their true emotions, and it’s natural. However, as I read on it made a deeper impact as we saw the terrible problems Tommy has with his father, with money, and with himself. It made me reflect on my own life, on how I hide my true emotions and of how others hide them too. It made me wonder how deeply I know the people around me and why I didn’t really care about them. Further, I thought about the reason of this, why did humans stop expressing their feelings to others and bottled them up inside? Was it money and tradition? That reminded me of Tommy’s father. “It made Wilhelm profoundly bitter that his father could to him with such detachment about his welfare.” (pg 8) In that old man’s tradition, one should not speak of personal problems, but seem calm and secure always. As I read this I thought of my father who tends to be a quiet man, and I wondered if I really knew him thoroughly.
Besides this, Bellow also makes the reader feel tied to the novel by the description of emotions he writes. There are times a single word cannot accurately describe a human emotion and Bellow recognizes this. In these cases he magnificently describes an emotion: “He was aware that his routine was about to break up and he sensed that a huge trouble long presaged but till now formless was due.” (pg 2) This feeling cannot be described in a single word. Dread, frustration, or fear just are not accurate enough. If I share this feeling, I’d describe it as a tidal wave falling upon only you. These descriptions that words cannot fully describe yet as a human we grasp almost perfectly are a great characteristic of the novel.
viernes, 2 de mayo de 2008
The Russian Dream
The Repatriates narrates the story of two Russian immigrants in America. As I read the opening, I thought this story would be like many other immigrant tales in America; however, I then saw the time period, the 1990’s and the opening statement by the author: “Retold, it was no longer about the Arsenyevs at all but about the ambushes that befall the most gleefully naïve of us.” I then began to expect a completely different story.
What impacted me the most initially was an apparent paradox in Grisha’s views. Like thousands of people from all over the world, the “American Dream” was their life’s desire. To go to America and live a life of happiness and prosperity was all he wanted. However, after living there as a corporate slave, he wanted to go back to Russia. At this point I stopped reading and reflected for a second, could that even be possible? Return from wealthy, individualist America to post-USSR Russia? This was going to be an interesting tale.
Grisha argued that in America he was just another a small part of the system “where he had been disregarded, he said, passed over for men whose only qualifications beyond his were that they could quote from “Star Wars” and recall Yankees scores from the Nixon era.” This made me think about my studies and future. Today, most businesses care only about job qualifications, where you studied, how many degrees you have and basically how much you invested in your education. You became an asset, a way for the business to make money. Was this everything there was to my future, nobody caring about your life or capacities as a human? I sincerely hope there is more to business.
I continued reading the story and saw how the characters moved back to Russia and revived a past life. How the author describes Moscow, with its suburbs, financial center and various social classes reminded me of New York City. I pictured Lera, Grisha’s wife, amongst the buildings and tides of people much like I felt in New York. This city was completely different to anything I had visited before, with its enormous buildings, masses and overall impersonality. Moscow and New York seemed very similar in my mind. Would this similarity reflect in the people of the cities?
When Lera heard her friend’s story about how she was scammed it answered my question. There is little difference. Everywhere there is fraud and corruption. Grisha had to pay homage to the church in Russia to befriend rich people, in America you help a charity. I don’t think I’d be wrong if I said there is an Enron in Russia as there is one in America. Today, business knows no boundaries, whether they are cultural, geographical or moral.
The underlying issue in this story is naivety, though Lera’s is more explicit, the author shows many different cases of it. Lera is naïve enough to think that her husband is only working in Russia for fame and wealth. She forgot that he spent a long time alone. She missed many signs like when Grisha shunned her love and seduction in bed. At the end, she realizes he is having an affair; however it still leaves many doubts. “Don’t talk about what you don’t know. Whatever obscene ideas you have are only in your own godless head. She’s been celibate for two years,” he said. “She’s a zatvornitsa.” Grisha speaks here without remorse, maybe he is speaking the truth, it is an innocent friendship. However, he starts packing and leaves, so his actions show contradiction. Next to this, he does not face the problem, it is almost if he accepts he’s been caught and knows what to do: leave.
Grisha himself suffers from naivety. He wants to begin a tremendous business in post-USSR Russia with few contacts. What ends up occurring is that he spends his family’s wealth just to begin, by paying tribute to others and acting differently as he is. Grisha, maybe not knowing it, traded his principles and family to the hope of wealth and fame. We never know what happens to him, but I cannot imagine any happiness for Grisha.
What impacted me the most initially was an apparent paradox in Grisha’s views. Like thousands of people from all over the world, the “American Dream” was their life’s desire. To go to America and live a life of happiness and prosperity was all he wanted. However, after living there as a corporate slave, he wanted to go back to Russia. At this point I stopped reading and reflected for a second, could that even be possible? Return from wealthy, individualist America to post-USSR Russia? This was going to be an interesting tale.
Grisha argued that in America he was just another a small part of the system “where he had been disregarded, he said, passed over for men whose only qualifications beyond his were that they could quote from “Star Wars” and recall Yankees scores from the Nixon era.” This made me think about my studies and future. Today, most businesses care only about job qualifications, where you studied, how many degrees you have and basically how much you invested in your education. You became an asset, a way for the business to make money. Was this everything there was to my future, nobody caring about your life or capacities as a human? I sincerely hope there is more to business.
I continued reading the story and saw how the characters moved back to Russia and revived a past life. How the author describes Moscow, with its suburbs, financial center and various social classes reminded me of New York City. I pictured Lera, Grisha’s wife, amongst the buildings and tides of people much like I felt in New York. This city was completely different to anything I had visited before, with its enormous buildings, masses and overall impersonality. Moscow and New York seemed very similar in my mind. Would this similarity reflect in the people of the cities?
When Lera heard her friend’s story about how she was scammed it answered my question. There is little difference. Everywhere there is fraud and corruption. Grisha had to pay homage to the church in Russia to befriend rich people, in America you help a charity. I don’t think I’d be wrong if I said there is an Enron in Russia as there is one in America. Today, business knows no boundaries, whether they are cultural, geographical or moral.
The underlying issue in this story is naivety, though Lera’s is more explicit, the author shows many different cases of it. Lera is naïve enough to think that her husband is only working in Russia for fame and wealth. She forgot that he spent a long time alone. She missed many signs like when Grisha shunned her love and seduction in bed. At the end, she realizes he is having an affair; however it still leaves many doubts. “Don’t talk about what you don’t know. Whatever obscene ideas you have are only in your own godless head. She’s been celibate for two years,” he said. “She’s a zatvornitsa.” Grisha speaks here without remorse, maybe he is speaking the truth, it is an innocent friendship. However, he starts packing and leaves, so his actions show contradiction. Next to this, he does not face the problem, it is almost if he accepts he’s been caught and knows what to do: leave.
Grisha himself suffers from naivety. He wants to begin a tremendous business in post-USSR Russia with few contacts. What ends up occurring is that he spends his family’s wealth just to begin, by paying tribute to others and acting differently as he is. Grisha, maybe not knowing it, traded his principles and family to the hope of wealth and fame. We never know what happens to him, but I cannot imagine any happiness for Grisha.
domingo, 13 de abril de 2008
But what was this world created for? To drive us mad ----- Candide
When Candide returned to Europe, he was still a very wealthy man. In his journey he had befriended Martin, a man who had gone through terrible misfortunes. Martin can be seen as the exact opposite of Pangloss. Martin seems to believe that all is for the worse and that humans cannot possibly be happy in society. “But what was this world created for?’ said Candide. ‘To drive us mad,’ replied Martin (pg 95).” Martin no longer believes in good or in the future. He simply lives the live he is giving knowing all other humans are going through similar misfortunes. He also knows men are evil almost by their very origin and they will do everything to benefit themselves. This is proven when Candide falls ill in France. When the attendants of the inn see his money chest and jewels, doctors are sent immediately, women care for his food and people came to entertain Candide. To this, Martin said, “I remember being ill myself during my first visit to Paris. I was very poor. But then I had no friends no kind ladies, and no doctors, so I soon recovered. (pg 97)” Here, Voltaire mocks human’s hypocrisy and action when personal gain is possible. The doctors actually worsened Candide’s ailment and brought him close to his death.
Even after going through dozens of misfortunes and being cheated by many people, Candide still kept his Panglossian naivety. During his recovery, Candide was visited by strangers who played cards with him and he always lost. “It astonished Candide that he never held and ace in his hand, but Martin was not surprised. (pg 98)” Here we can see Candide’s naivety contrasted with Martin’s pessimistic knowledge of society. The biggest show of Candide’s ever present naivety is how he lets himself be basically siphoned of all his riches by a French abbe who takes him to many places of entertainment. Voltaire even makes the reader know about this: “He had had only a small share of the fifty thousand francs Candide had lost at cards and of the value of the two diamonds which the Marchioness had wheedled from him. (pg 106).” This conflict between Candide’s optimism and Martin’s pessimism will be present in then rest of the novel; however, why doesn’t Martin simply make Candide snap out of it? Why make him lose millions to thieves and brigands? I think Martin knows that the only way for Candide to really understand life is for him to live it. Either that or Martin simply does not care, as he ceased to care for everything else.
After he was tricked by the French and had to pay a lot of money for his liberty, Candide reached the shores of England. There he saw an interesting event: “Four soldiers stood opposite him and fired three rounds each into his skull with the utmost composure, at which the crowd dispersed evidently quite satisfied. (pg 110)” This gruesome sight horrifies Candide, even more after Martin tells him it was British admiral who was executed for not killing enough French. This was done to keep the other admirals “on their feet”. For this coldness, Candide swears to never set foot in England. I also found this excerpt interesting because of the last phrase, “at which the crowd dispersed evidently quite satisfied.” Here I felt the irony with which Voltaire wrote this phrase. How could people leave satisfied from an execution? Voltaire is mocking the 18th century Man of “Reason”, who is supposed to use logic and his values to act properly. When this enlightened man views and commends an execution, he is renouncing all of his claims of civility. Humans are not civilized.
In this section of the novel we also see the value of money. To Candide, who has more wealth than most Europeans, money seems of lesser importance than any other thing. The question there is whether this is true because he happens to be rich or he actually does not believe that money is important like Count Pocurante. I think it is because he has so much money that he doesn’t care about his spending. In previous chapters he often cared about it like when he decided to return to Europe as wealthy as possible. Voltaire I believe also mocks high-class society with Candide. At this time of enormous social inequality, the aristocracy spent sickening amounts of money on petty things like banquets or clothing. Candide’s enormous pending made me see this connection with the novel. This disdain for money is contrasted by the demeaning things many will do for it at a minimal effort, like the people who played cards with Candide, the women who wanted to tend for him or the abbe who even wrote a forged letter from Miss Cunegond in order to get Candide’s wealth. This humiliation is shown by Voltaire to state how materialistic and void of values society has become.
Even after going through dozens of misfortunes and being cheated by many people, Candide still kept his Panglossian naivety. During his recovery, Candide was visited by strangers who played cards with him and he always lost. “It astonished Candide that he never held and ace in his hand, but Martin was not surprised. (pg 98)” Here we can see Candide’s naivety contrasted with Martin’s pessimistic knowledge of society. The biggest show of Candide’s ever present naivety is how he lets himself be basically siphoned of all his riches by a French abbe who takes him to many places of entertainment. Voltaire even makes the reader know about this: “He had had only a small share of the fifty thousand francs Candide had lost at cards and of the value of the two diamonds which the Marchioness had wheedled from him. (pg 106).” This conflict between Candide’s optimism and Martin’s pessimism will be present in then rest of the novel; however, why doesn’t Martin simply make Candide snap out of it? Why make him lose millions to thieves and brigands? I think Martin knows that the only way for Candide to really understand life is for him to live it. Either that or Martin simply does not care, as he ceased to care for everything else.
After he was tricked by the French and had to pay a lot of money for his liberty, Candide reached the shores of England. There he saw an interesting event: “Four soldiers stood opposite him and fired three rounds each into his skull with the utmost composure, at which the crowd dispersed evidently quite satisfied. (pg 110)” This gruesome sight horrifies Candide, even more after Martin tells him it was British admiral who was executed for not killing enough French. This was done to keep the other admirals “on their feet”. For this coldness, Candide swears to never set foot in England. I also found this excerpt interesting because of the last phrase, “at which the crowd dispersed evidently quite satisfied.” Here I felt the irony with which Voltaire wrote this phrase. How could people leave satisfied from an execution? Voltaire is mocking the 18th century Man of “Reason”, who is supposed to use logic and his values to act properly. When this enlightened man views and commends an execution, he is renouncing all of his claims of civility. Humans are not civilized.
In this section of the novel we also see the value of money. To Candide, who has more wealth than most Europeans, money seems of lesser importance than any other thing. The question there is whether this is true because he happens to be rich or he actually does not believe that money is important like Count Pocurante. I think it is because he has so much money that he doesn’t care about his spending. In previous chapters he often cared about it like when he decided to return to Europe as wealthy as possible. Voltaire I believe also mocks high-class society with Candide. At this time of enormous social inequality, the aristocracy spent sickening amounts of money on petty things like banquets or clothing. Candide’s enormous pending made me see this connection with the novel. This disdain for money is contrasted by the demeaning things many will do for it at a minimal effort, like the people who played cards with Candide, the women who wanted to tend for him or the abbe who even wrote a forged letter from Miss Cunegond in order to get Candide’s wealth. This humiliation is shown by Voltaire to state how materialistic and void of values society has become.
So These Happy Men Decided to Be Happy No Longer ---- Candide
In chapters 16 -20 of Candide, we find Pangloss’ so-called perfect World, but it is not the whole World but just a minimal portion of Earth. This place is Eldorado, the famous city f gold from American lore. In his novel, Voltaire makes it the Utopia for the 18th century Man of Reason, where everything is guided by reason and logic, not religion or other frivolities. In this remote and isolated place, all basic needs are taken care of by the government, like food and education. Here we also see what every Man of Reason desired, and that was to be rid of materialistic desires. By placing gold, emeralds and rubies at such easy access, Eldorado makes them simple natural goods, resources with which to build your home or eat your food.
Voltaire mocks materialistic humankind by down-playing the seemingly important aspects of the home, its gold and silver construction and its precious stone finish. In the same excerpt he hails simple things like the craftsmanship and design of the house to further show the reader what truly should matter to a Man of Reason. He also lavishly exaggerates the apparently “modest” house to make the reader wonder how the higher class houses must be like. Voltaire is mocking the reader’s materialism by showing it as one of the least important aspects of life. Later on, when Candide meets the King we are shown how true power should be: “The custom is,’ said the lord-in-waiting, ‘to embrace the King and kiss him on both cheeks. (pg 81)” A King of men should be humble and friendly to all, for example by showing kindness and equality by hugging his subjects and guests. Voltaire satirizes the show-me-I’m-better actions of European Kings who demand submission by his subjects and the utmost proofs of inferiority from others. In reality Kings should be wise enough to demonstrate their power through kindness and mutual respect.
Later on in the visit to Eldorado, Voltaire shows us how, even when given everything they ever ask for, men always desire more and bend down to their greedy selves. “They were both anxious, also, to show their friends how rich they had grown and to boast about what they had seen in their travels. (pg 83)” Candide and Cacambo have everything they could ever desire: food, wealth, friendship and liberty to think as their mind so desires. Still, the two westerners wish more, they seek the approval of society and they want to show superiority. This desire to be better than the other is what makes humankind different from the people at Eldorado who lack this urge. Voltaire follows this passage with “So these happy men decided to be happy no longer and to take leave of His Majesty. (pg 83)” Materialism and greed will never bring happiness to a man as he will always desire more, and even if he gets everything he needs a man will never be satisfied. This reminded me of a quote I once heard which said, “A man always wishes to be as happy as his neighbor and this is impossible for his neighbor is never as happy as he appears.” Men in our society are apparently doomed to live a life of ambition and desire for more.
Voltaire also attacks religion in his description of utopia, “Do you say you have no monks teaching and disputing, governing and intriguing, and having people burned if they don’t subscribe to their opinions? (pg 80)” Voltaire attacks the ridiculous tasks religion has appointed itself to. The Pope should not govern and teach or burn others, the churches only purpose should be to thank God as the people of Eldorado do to their God They simply thank him for what they have been given and use Reason for everything else. When Candide asked what religion they practiced, the Inca philosopher responded: “Can there be two religions, then?’ said he. ‘I have always believed that we hold the religion of all mankind. (pg 79)” Voltaire is showing how foolish it is to fight over religion. We are all humans and we all come from the same origin so we must all come from the same god. If this is true why do we fight about its name be it Jesus, Allah, or Buddha? In Eldorado, by the use of Reason they have realized this and do not fight about religion as it is such a simple matter. Voltaire uses the Utopia to satirize the apparent complexity humans give religion and how, if we used reason for religion as we do science, many of the world’s problems would be solved.
They walked over to a modest little house, and went in. The door was mere
silver, and the rooms were paneled by nothing better than gold; but the
worksmanship was in such good state as to vie with the richest paneling. It is
true that the hall was incrusted only with rubies and emeralds, but everything
was so well designed as to compensate for this extreme simplicity. (pg 78)
Voltaire mocks materialistic humankind by down-playing the seemingly important aspects of the home, its gold and silver construction and its precious stone finish. In the same excerpt he hails simple things like the craftsmanship and design of the house to further show the reader what truly should matter to a Man of Reason. He also lavishly exaggerates the apparently “modest” house to make the reader wonder how the higher class houses must be like. Voltaire is mocking the reader’s materialism by showing it as one of the least important aspects of life. Later on, when Candide meets the King we are shown how true power should be: “The custom is,’ said the lord-in-waiting, ‘to embrace the King and kiss him on both cheeks. (pg 81)” A King of men should be humble and friendly to all, for example by showing kindness and equality by hugging his subjects and guests. Voltaire satirizes the show-me-I’m-better actions of European Kings who demand submission by his subjects and the utmost proofs of inferiority from others. In reality Kings should be wise enough to demonstrate their power through kindness and mutual respect.
Later on in the visit to Eldorado, Voltaire shows us how, even when given everything they ever ask for, men always desire more and bend down to their greedy selves. “They were both anxious, also, to show their friends how rich they had grown and to boast about what they had seen in their travels. (pg 83)” Candide and Cacambo have everything they could ever desire: food, wealth, friendship and liberty to think as their mind so desires. Still, the two westerners wish more, they seek the approval of society and they want to show superiority. This desire to be better than the other is what makes humankind different from the people at Eldorado who lack this urge. Voltaire follows this passage with “So these happy men decided to be happy no longer and to take leave of His Majesty. (pg 83)” Materialism and greed will never bring happiness to a man as he will always desire more, and even if he gets everything he needs a man will never be satisfied. This reminded me of a quote I once heard which said, “A man always wishes to be as happy as his neighbor and this is impossible for his neighbor is never as happy as he appears.” Men in our society are apparently doomed to live a life of ambition and desire for more.
Voltaire also attacks religion in his description of utopia, “Do you say you have no monks teaching and disputing, governing and intriguing, and having people burned if they don’t subscribe to their opinions? (pg 80)” Voltaire attacks the ridiculous tasks religion has appointed itself to. The Pope should not govern and teach or burn others, the churches only purpose should be to thank God as the people of Eldorado do to their God They simply thank him for what they have been given and use Reason for everything else. When Candide asked what religion they practiced, the Inca philosopher responded: “Can there be two religions, then?’ said he. ‘I have always believed that we hold the religion of all mankind. (pg 79)” Voltaire is showing how foolish it is to fight over religion. We are all humans and we all come from the same origin so we must all come from the same god. If this is true why do we fight about its name be it Jesus, Allah, or Buddha? In Eldorado, by the use of Reason they have realized this and do not fight about religion as it is such a simple matter. Voltaire uses the Utopia to satirize the apparent complexity humans give religion and how, if we used reason for religion as we do science, many of the world’s problems would be solved.
miércoles, 9 de abril de 2008
Everyone has a Superlative Candid
Chapters 10-15 of Candide change the setting of the novel. Before this, Candide seemed a naïve boy in love with Miss Cunegond, but now Candide is a criminal and the couple is running away to the New World. Here I can begin to see how Candide changes from Dr. Pangloss’ innocent apprentice to a real man, a person who has seen the world. This process however, is not immediate as I saw in the following excerpt: “Our excellent Pangloss often proved to me,’ said Candide, with a sigh, ‘that worldly goods are common to all men, and that everyone has equal right to them. That being so, the friar certainly ought to have left us enough to finish our journey. (pg 47)” This quote is absurd in many senses. Pangloss was so naïve in believing this sort of silliness and Candide was so devoted to Pangloss that this was assimilated by him without hesitation. Voltaire might be mocking the stubbornness of high class people. He mocks their hesitation in accepting reality and realizing they do not live like the rest of society. Candide, despite of seeing the worse in society, still hesitates in believing a person would steal from him. Who is capable of stealing while being a rational human? This ingenuity is seen also when the party is on its way to America and they still believe the “best of the best” theory, “We are going to a different world,’ said Candide, ‘and I expect it is the one where all goes well; for I must admit that regrettable things happen in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one cannot approve of. (pg 48)” By observing the most disgraceful acts in society, Candide’s “best of the best” worlds is crumbling, everything he has believed in is being contradicted by his senses. Because of this, he is desperate to keep believing what Dr. Pangloss taught him, so he begins to take the theory literally. If this world I lived in is in fact, not the best but the worst, then the New World where I am going must be the best wolrd possible. Candide does not want to understand that both Europe and America are part of the same world. Voltaire is criticizing many of the New World colonizers who thought similarly to Candide, their wretched lives in Europe would change by art of magic once they arrived in the “New World”.
Both Cunegond and Candide complained endlessly about their misfortunes, as if they were the most unfortunate souls in the world. This is a very human thing to think, feel that you are the most important part of the universe and if something happens to you it is the worst possible. As I read this, I realized I selfishly felt this way many times in my life. Then Abigail, Cunegond’s assistant tells them her story and the reader can see the contrast between a person who has lived life and a person who hasn’t. Abigail knows she is a mere human amongst million more and what she suffers everyone suffers.
Had Candide or Cunegond suffered these misfortunes, they would have believed they were the most unlucky people in the universe, or the most hated, or any other superlative. What Abigail has realized and they have not is that everyone has that superlative and everyone goes through terrible hardships in their lifes.
After Candide arrives to America, they are greeted by the governor of Buenos Ayres who is immediately attracted to Cunegond. Here we see a criticism of the arbitrations of power. The governor, realizing he had power, believed he could get Cunegond no matter what Candide felt towards her. At this point I expected Cunegond to say she loved Candide and wanted to stay with his love, but I saw the exact opposite. Cunegond sought the advice of Abigail asking whether she should stay with the governor or not, but she never mentioned Candide in the whole conversation. Cunegond knew she was a criminal and with Abigail’s help realized her best bet to survive and become an aristocrat again was to stay with the governor. Voltaire is criticizing human nature and how self preservation and benefit moves humans beyond morale or values.
In these chapters there is a great mock of religion, be it Catholic or Muslim. “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina. (pg 49).” This claim is extremely scandalous as Popes, the holiest people on Earth, are supposed to practice abstinence and work only for God. In other ages Voltaire’s allusion to the actual papacy would have earned him a seat in the stake, but now Voltaire is mocking the Church in two ways: The first being the attack on the Pope’s sanctity and purity. The second attack is that he can say so with little repercussion from the church. Voltaire also attacks the believers of religion by contrasting the real world with religion. “Scenes such as these took place all over that country, as I know full well – and it is three hundred leagues across. Yet they will not miss one of the five daily prayers prescribed by Mahomet. (pg 53)” Killers stop massacring each other to pray. This is ridiculous, yet very true. It reminded me of “la Virgen de los Sicarios” a holy image to which hit men pray to before doing their bloody job. It also reminded me of the Crusades, holy wars to recover Christian land. How can a religion that urges peace and unity amongst all order such butchery? Perhaps the biggest attack on the church occurs when Candide is heading to the Jesuit stronghold in Paraguay:
I loved that excerpt. It does a clear satire of the Jesuits who seem to be holy followers on Christ but in reality are like any other political force. They manipulate and act as they please, yet they maintain their reputation of sanctity. This might be perhaps due to the New World where it’s basically an every-man-for-himself game. There is a clean slate and game rules change. Much like Candide, the Jesuits are looking for a new beginning in the new world, and they want power. Voltaire mocks this by showing their hypocrisy. The pledge humility but they own all the land. They kill their benefactors in Europe and send their leaders to heaven in order to maintain favor. Voltaire makes the reader see that religion’s corruption is infinite, whether it is in the terrible world of Europe or the “best of the best” world of America.
Both Cunegond and Candide complained endlessly about their misfortunes, as if they were the most unfortunate souls in the world. This is a very human thing to think, feel that you are the most important part of the universe and if something happens to you it is the worst possible. As I read this, I realized I selfishly felt this way many times in my life. Then Abigail, Cunegond’s assistant tells them her story and the reader can see the contrast between a person who has lived life and a person who hasn’t. Abigail knows she is a mere human amongst million more and what she suffers everyone suffers.
All were killed, both captors and captives, my companions, the soldiers,
sailors, blacks, whites, and mulattoes, and finally the pirate chief; and I
myself lay dying on a heap of corpses. Scenes such as these took place all over
that country, as I know full well – and it is three hundred leagues across. (pg
52)
Had Candide or Cunegond suffered these misfortunes, they would have believed they were the most unlucky people in the universe, or the most hated, or any other superlative. What Abigail has realized and they have not is that everyone has that superlative and everyone goes through terrible hardships in their lifes.
After Candide arrives to America, they are greeted by the governor of Buenos Ayres who is immediately attracted to Cunegond. Here we see a criticism of the arbitrations of power. The governor, realizing he had power, believed he could get Cunegond no matter what Candide felt towards her. At this point I expected Cunegond to say she loved Candide and wanted to stay with his love, but I saw the exact opposite. Cunegond sought the advice of Abigail asking whether she should stay with the governor or not, but she never mentioned Candide in the whole conversation. Cunegond knew she was a criminal and with Abigail’s help realized her best bet to survive and become an aristocrat again was to stay with the governor. Voltaire is criticizing human nature and how self preservation and benefit moves humans beyond morale or values.
In these chapters there is a great mock of religion, be it Catholic or Muslim. “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina. (pg 49).” This claim is extremely scandalous as Popes, the holiest people on Earth, are supposed to practice abstinence and work only for God. In other ages Voltaire’s allusion to the actual papacy would have earned him a seat in the stake, but now Voltaire is mocking the Church in two ways: The first being the attack on the Pope’s sanctity and purity. The second attack is that he can say so with little repercussion from the church. Voltaire also attacks the believers of religion by contrasting the real world with religion. “Scenes such as these took place all over that country, as I know full well – and it is three hundred leagues across. Yet they will not miss one of the five daily prayers prescribed by Mahomet. (pg 53)” Killers stop massacring each other to pray. This is ridiculous, yet very true. It reminded me of “la Virgen de los Sicarios” a holy image to which hit men pray to before doing their bloody job. It also reminded me of the Crusades, holy wars to recover Christian land. How can a religion that urges peace and unity amongst all order such butchery? Perhaps the biggest attack on the church occurs when Candide is heading to the Jesuit stronghold in Paraguay:
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
godlike creatures as the reverend fathers. They fight the Kings of Spain and
Portugal over here and give them absolution in Europe. In this country they kill
Spaniards, and in Madrid they send them to heaven. Delightful, isn’t it?... (pg
62)
I loved that excerpt. It does a clear satire of the Jesuits who seem to be holy followers on Christ but in reality are like any other political force. They manipulate and act as they please, yet they maintain their reputation of sanctity. This might be perhaps due to the New World where it’s basically an every-man-for-himself game. There is a clean slate and game rules change. Much like Candide, the Jesuits are looking for a new beginning in the new world, and they want power. Voltaire mocks this by showing their hypocrisy. The pledge humility but they own all the land. They kill their benefactors in Europe and send their leaders to heaven in order to maintain favor. Voltaire makes the reader see that religion’s corruption is infinite, whether it is in the terrible world of Europe or the “best of the best” world of America.
domingo, 6 de abril de 2008
For the best? Candid 4-9
After chapter three of Candide, we see a change of attitudes towards the wolrd the charcaters live in. In chapter four, Candide meets a beggar riddled with small pox. This wretched being turns out to be his former tutor, Dr. Pangloss. Candide is horrified at this turn of events and asks about his love, Lady Cunégonde. Pangloss tells him she was raped and killed by Bulgar soldiers who attacked his former home. Candide is grief-stricken at these news, but he knows he must cure Pangloss. He asks James, the Anabaptist for help and his benefactor fervently aids Pangloss. For this, Pangloss becomes his accountant.
At this point, Candide’s perspective of the world begins to change. Two views collide: Dr. Pangloss’ optimistic view of how everything is done for the best and Candide’s bitter real world experiences which prove the “best of the best” is not necessarily true for his world. The reader begins to hope Candide will realize the truth about humankind, about its flaws and mistakes, but the reentry of Dr. Pangloss in such a crucial time slows this whole process down. Pangloss comes and from his new dreaded existence continues to preach optimism.
When I read this I truly laughed. Pangloss actually says that such a terrible thing as small pox is the best outcome of events because it gave Europe Chocolate and Cochineal. Besides finding this completely ridiculous, it is of the outmost selfishness to see such a disease as a good thing. One might say that Pangloss is selfless because even in his own disease he finds the good for society; however, his actions make it feel that he simply has come to believe only in his theory and that is why he must find the good in everything. This reminded me of occasions when I had to defend a position I disagreed with, I agreed with my attackers but the fact that they were attacking what I had to defend made me fight back and, on occasions, begin to believe what I didn’t believe before. Could Pangloss be in this dilemma? Besides these, the ridiculous defense of Small Pox is an evident tool that Voltaire used to mock optimism of his time.
During the boat trip to Lisbon, we find the first explicit attack on optimism by James the Anabaptist. “Men,’ he said, ‘must have somewhat altered the course of nature; for they were not born wolves, yet they have become wolves. (pg 31)” This stated that men have created war and weapons to kill each other and laws to force the poor to pay the rich, which is entirely against the “best of the best” thought. Pangloss then argues that this is true, but the “best of the best” thought is not individual, but collective so the more misfortunes an individual has, the more it somehow aids others. This argument was clearly used by Voltaire to mock and discredit other thinkers of the time who believed in the common good and not on the progress of the individual. With this idea, he also mixes religion. James the Anabaptist, a non-catholic, is the one who saves Candide from the terrible Catholic priests and is who fights Pangloss’ theories. Voltaire does this to attack the Catholic Church and its terrible power, far outdated and overgrown with corruption. Voltaire places James, the non-Christian, enlightened benefactor against Pangloss, the close-minded, pro-Christian conservative in an ideological combat which is clearly biased. We see Dr. Pangloss as ridiculous, while we see James as the very best of humankind. This is very clear after James drowns after he saved a sailor, “He wanted to throw himself into the sea after the Anabaptist, but the great philosopher, Pangloss, stopped him by proving that Lisbon harbor was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there. (pg 33)” Voltaire purposely refers to James the hero as “the Anabaptist” while he refers to Pangloss, the man who stopped James from being saved, as “the great philosopher” and mocks the way he proved Lisbon harbor was made for James to drown there.
After many hardships such as earthquakes, floggings and the death of Pangloss, Candide finally pops his ideological bubble:
Candide realized the world was not how he had viewed it all his life, humans are not perfect and events are not always for the best. We have now seen how Voltaire places an innocent young man in the real world and turns him from a ridiculous view of life to reality, entirely discrediting optimists such as Pangloss.
At the end of chapter nine, Candide ends up killing his love’s owners. He is now wanted, as well as Lady Cunégund and just a few weeks earlier he would have never thought of murder. Here, Voltaire exemplifies his ideas. If everything is for the best, how could Candide end up killing the Grand Inquisitor “for the best of results” if that same Inquisitor was also allegedly living “for the best results”? Every human forges his own fate, like the corrupt Inquisitor or the murdering Candide. There is no best result, the only thing that matters is what occurred whether it was the best thing or not.
At this point, Candide’s perspective of the world begins to change. Two views collide: Dr. Pangloss’ optimistic view of how everything is done for the best and Candide’s bitter real world experiences which prove the “best of the best” is not necessarily true for his world. The reader begins to hope Candide will realize the truth about humankind, about its flaws and mistakes, but the reentry of Dr. Pangloss in such a crucial time slows this whole process down. Pangloss comes and from his new dreaded existence continues to preach optimism.
"Not at all," replied the great man, "it was a thing unavoidable, a necessary
ingredient in the best of worlds; for if Columbus had not caught in an island in
America this disease, which contaminates the source of generation, and
frequently impedes propagation itself, and is evidently opposed to the great end
of nature, we should have had neither chocolate nor cochineal. (pg 30)
When I read this I truly laughed. Pangloss actually says that such a terrible thing as small pox is the best outcome of events because it gave Europe Chocolate and Cochineal. Besides finding this completely ridiculous, it is of the outmost selfishness to see such a disease as a good thing. One might say that Pangloss is selfless because even in his own disease he finds the good for society; however, his actions make it feel that he simply has come to believe only in his theory and that is why he must find the good in everything. This reminded me of occasions when I had to defend a position I disagreed with, I agreed with my attackers but the fact that they were attacking what I had to defend made me fight back and, on occasions, begin to believe what I didn’t believe before. Could Pangloss be in this dilemma? Besides these, the ridiculous defense of Small Pox is an evident tool that Voltaire used to mock optimism of his time.
During the boat trip to Lisbon, we find the first explicit attack on optimism by James the Anabaptist. “Men,’ he said, ‘must have somewhat altered the course of nature; for they were not born wolves, yet they have become wolves. (pg 31)” This stated that men have created war and weapons to kill each other and laws to force the poor to pay the rich, which is entirely against the “best of the best” thought. Pangloss then argues that this is true, but the “best of the best” thought is not individual, but collective so the more misfortunes an individual has, the more it somehow aids others. This argument was clearly used by Voltaire to mock and discredit other thinkers of the time who believed in the common good and not on the progress of the individual. With this idea, he also mixes religion. James the Anabaptist, a non-catholic, is the one who saves Candide from the terrible Catholic priests and is who fights Pangloss’ theories. Voltaire does this to attack the Catholic Church and its terrible power, far outdated and overgrown with corruption. Voltaire places James, the non-Christian, enlightened benefactor against Pangloss, the close-minded, pro-Christian conservative in an ideological combat which is clearly biased. We see Dr. Pangloss as ridiculous, while we see James as the very best of humankind. This is very clear after James drowns after he saved a sailor, “He wanted to throw himself into the sea after the Anabaptist, but the great philosopher, Pangloss, stopped him by proving that Lisbon harbor was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there. (pg 33)” Voltaire purposely refers to James the hero as “the Anabaptist” while he refers to Pangloss, the man who stopped James from being saved, as “the great philosopher” and mocks the way he proved Lisbon harbor was made for James to drown there.
After many hardships such as earthquakes, floggings and the death of Pangloss, Candide finally pops his ideological bubble:
"If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others? If I had only
been whipped, I could have put up with it, as I did among the Bulgarians; but,
not withstanding, oh my dear Pangloss! my beloved master! thou greatest of
philosophers! that ever I should live to see thee hanged, without knowing for
what! O my dear Anabaptist, thou best of men, that it should be thy fate to be
drowned in the very harbor! O Miss Cunegund, you mirror of young ladies! that it
should be your fate to have your body ripped open! (pg 37)"
Candide realized the world was not how he had viewed it all his life, humans are not perfect and events are not always for the best. We have now seen how Voltaire places an innocent young man in the real world and turns him from a ridiculous view of life to reality, entirely discrediting optimists such as Pangloss.
At the end of chapter nine, Candide ends up killing his love’s owners. He is now wanted, as well as Lady Cunégund and just a few weeks earlier he would have never thought of murder. Here, Voltaire exemplifies his ideas. If everything is for the best, how could Candide end up killing the Grand Inquisitor “for the best of results” if that same Inquisitor was also allegedly living “for the best results”? Every human forges his own fate, like the corrupt Inquisitor or the murdering Candide. There is no best result, the only thing that matters is what occurred whether it was the best thing or not.
miércoles, 2 de abril de 2008
"Let them eat cake" ------ Candid
Voltaire’s Candid is one of the most famous satires in literature. Its first three chapters tell the story of young Candid, who was raised in the castle of a rich Baron, the best castle in the entire world (ch 1). Here he fell in love with a young woman and for that he was exiled from his most perfect home. Afterwards he reaches a town an there he is invited to eat by three gentlemen who, after cleverly talking with Candid, recruit him for the army without him realizing it. In the army, he does his job well after many beatings, but he believes he can still live like he did before and walks out freely. When he is caught he is giving an extreme beating. Later on during a battle he is able to desert the army and he reaches Holland. There he is attacked by a conservative Christian because he didn’t know about the Pope. Scared and alone, he is received by a generous non-Christian who gives him food and shelter. I expect this to be only the beginning of Candid’s problems in the real world.
This novel is a clear satire of high society of the time. The first chapter describes the environment in which Candid was raised, a rich Castle with a rich family and mentored by the greatest mind of the time. Voltaire mocks this alleged superiority to the rest of the world by showing what absurd things are important to them and how they think. “The Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows, and his great hall was hung with tapestry (ch 1).” When I read this I found it very funny, the greatest power of the land is measured by a castle that not only had a gate but windows? That is ridiculous! Voltaire attacks the materialism of the high class, he says that the Baron is great because he hunted with mastiffs and spaniels instead of greyhounds, if that be the case, just save for a mastiff and you’re set as royalty! Voltaire then describes the Baroness in a hilarious manner: “My Lady Baroness, who weighed three hundred and fifty pounds, consequently was a person of no small consideration; and then she did the honors of the house with a dignity that commanded universal respect (ch1).” By being an enormous woman, all the adjectives that the speaker uses have the exact opposite effect of their original purpose. “She was of no small consideration” regarding a normal-sized woman would describe her as powerful or capable, but in the Baroness it simply states her weight.
In this chapter, the most hilarious thing is Master Pangloss. This teacher is the greatest philosopher in Westphalia who thinks everything is perfectly done in the world. "It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.” Pangloss’ rationale is very fallacious, he uses circular reasoning for his explanation and, Candid in his ingenuity, believes him. Worse is Pangloss’ examples of this, he says noses are made for spectacles and therefore they use spectacles, or that pork was made to be eaten so they eat pork all year. This is the most absurd examples I have heard. Yet, because Master Pangloss is the family’s philosopher, and therefore the best, we have to believe every word he says.
Another theme found in these three chapters is high class naivety. When Candid is exiled he reaches a town and has tremendous idealist thoughts.
What kind of person thinks a complete stranger will state that when he doesn’t know it? Candid thinks he is very important and all his life is very important when in reality that is not the case. Next to this pompousness, Candid thinks two men in uniform treat him so well because they want to be his friends. Even before he was recruited a conscious person would have known they were army officers. He was also naïve enough to think that in the army you were still free, despite being beat several times. He decides to walk freely and in doing so he is breaking the law. His belief in a world created in the “best possible way” makes him think there is no evil in this world.
We can also see the bubble in which high class lives, how could Candid not know about the Pope or the King? According to Voltaire, since they have the money to live comfortably in any situation, the high class doesn’t need to know about anything relevant, they only have to know that they are in that position because it was decided to be so. That reminded me of Marie Antoinette’s comment during the French Revolution, “If they can’t have bread, let them eat cake.”
In this chapter, Voltaire also mocks war. He starts describing with majestic adjectives the killing of 30,000 men like it was a valiant and great thing. In this way he illustrates the sarcasm and hypocrisy of nobles and royalty who favor war because they are not the ones who fight it.
This novel is a clear satire of high society of the time. The first chapter describes the environment in which Candid was raised, a rich Castle with a rich family and mentored by the greatest mind of the time. Voltaire mocks this alleged superiority to the rest of the world by showing what absurd things are important to them and how they think. “The Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows, and his great hall was hung with tapestry (ch 1).” When I read this I found it very funny, the greatest power of the land is measured by a castle that not only had a gate but windows? That is ridiculous! Voltaire attacks the materialism of the high class, he says that the Baron is great because he hunted with mastiffs and spaniels instead of greyhounds, if that be the case, just save for a mastiff and you’re set as royalty! Voltaire then describes the Baroness in a hilarious manner: “My Lady Baroness, who weighed three hundred and fifty pounds, consequently was a person of no small consideration; and then she did the honors of the house with a dignity that commanded universal respect (ch1).” By being an enormous woman, all the adjectives that the speaker uses have the exact opposite effect of their original purpose. “She was of no small consideration” regarding a normal-sized woman would describe her as powerful or capable, but in the Baroness it simply states her weight.
In this chapter, the most hilarious thing is Master Pangloss. This teacher is the greatest philosopher in Westphalia who thinks everything is perfectly done in the world. "It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.” Pangloss’ rationale is very fallacious, he uses circular reasoning for his explanation and, Candid in his ingenuity, believes him. Worse is Pangloss’ examples of this, he says noses are made for spectacles and therefore they use spectacles, or that pork was made to be eaten so they eat pork all year. This is the most absurd examples I have heard. Yet, because Master Pangloss is the family’s philosopher, and therefore the best, we have to believe every word he says.
Another theme found in these three chapters is high class naivety. When Candid is exiled he reaches a town and has tremendous idealist thoughts.
"Have you not a great affection for-"
"O yes! I have a great affection for
the lovely Miss Cunegund. (ch 2)"
What kind of person thinks a complete stranger will state that when he doesn’t know it? Candid thinks he is very important and all his life is very important when in reality that is not the case. Next to this pompousness, Candid thinks two men in uniform treat him so well because they want to be his friends. Even before he was recruited a conscious person would have known they were army officers. He was also naïve enough to think that in the army you were still free, despite being beat several times. He decides to walk freely and in doing so he is breaking the law. His belief in a world created in the “best possible way” makes him think there is no evil in this world.
We can also see the bubble in which high class lives, how could Candid not know about the Pope or the King? According to Voltaire, since they have the money to live comfortably in any situation, the high class doesn’t need to know about anything relevant, they only have to know that they are in that position because it was decided to be so. That reminded me of Marie Antoinette’s comment during the French Revolution, “If they can’t have bread, let them eat cake.”
In this chapter, Voltaire also mocks war. He starts describing with majestic adjectives the killing of 30,000 men like it was a valiant and great thing. In this way he illustrates the sarcasm and hypocrisy of nobles and royalty who favor war because they are not the ones who fight it.
Never was anything so gallant, so well accoutred, so brilliant, and so finelyThis reminded me about phrases like “The Glory of War”, “Noble knights” or “The Beauty of Battle”. All of these I have heard and clearly these were not done by the warriors who fought the battles. War is terrible for anyone who lives it, but only the ones who create it, like kings, enjoy it.
disposed as the two armies. The trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon
made such harmony as never was heard in Hell itself. The entertainment began by
a discharge of cannon, which, in the twinkling of an eye, laid flat about 6,000
men on each side. The musket bullets swept away, out of the best of all possible
worlds, nine or ten thousand scoundrels that infested its surface. The bayonet
was next the sufficient reason of the deaths of several thousands. The whole
might amount to thirty thousand souls. (ch 3)
domingo, 30 de marzo de 2008
"Go back to page one and look again..." The Crying of lot 49
The sixth and final chapter of Lot 49 seems very different to me from the rest of the book. For the first time there is a grim mood to the novel. When Driblette, the play’s director killed himself, he took the answer to Oedipa’s obsession with him. This greatly disappoints Oedipa as she now knows that she cannot find the answer to one of her main doubts. The reason why the play mentions Tristero at the end will remain a mystery to her forever. Then she is given a terrible idea. What if everything is a fake? What if Inverarity orchestrated the whole thing to make a practical joke? She has been destroyed to such an extent by her obsession with Tristero that she brushes this idea aside. The problem however, is that as she investigates this theory the more she realizes that Inveraity can be linked to every aspect of Tristero she has checked. This gives her that feeling that all that she lost, all that she went through was for nothing. This takes a terrible toll on her physically and emotionally. The reader can now see how Oedipa is giving up, “I needed you [Driblette]. Only bring me that memory, and you can live with me for whatever time I’ve got (pg 133).” She has become desperate, but later she decided to stop pushing the issue, it was just too much for her.
This first major deception in his quest hit her like a train. She was powerless now to find the answer she desired so badly. Communication is a two-way street only and that is a problem according to Pynchon. Those communications problems, death, anonymity, misinterpretation, are what make the system fail. Pynchon also criticizes human nature itself in this final chapter. A rational person would never expect someone like Inverarity to even conceive such a sick act like this practical joke, if that is what it is. The high possibility of the entire novel being a joke is sickening, how can someone enjoy playing with another person’s head like that? Then I realized that is not as uncommon. The media keeps us in fear and governments tell us who our enemies are. Like in 1984, the whole purpose of society is to play with our heads to the will of the leaders.
Later on, Oedipa finds out what W.A.S.T.E means, “We Await Silent Tristero’s Empire.” One more answer given, but Oedipa, despite knowing a lot about Tristero, cannot finish giving up. Then, she hears news that the Tristero stamp collection is being auctioned as Lot 49. There is a mysterious bidder that wants to acquire the stamps and he seems the sole link left between Oedipa and Tristero. She goes to the auction and sits in the back looking for the bidder. “Oedipa sat alone, toward the back of the room, looking at the napes of necks, trying to guess which one was her target, her enemy, perhaps her proof (pg 152).” The novel ends without solving the mystery, without showing who is the bidder or what was Tristero in reality. Besides mocking the streamline whodunit ending of detective novels, the mysterious ending has a deeper meaning. The mystery doesn’t matter. Pynchon has told us everything worth saying, the satires, the analysis of human life and of society, everything. He also mocks the human necessity to have a goal and purpose here. The reader’s purpose was to analyze the book and find the answer to the mystery, Pynchon eliminates any possibility to see the ending. Miscommunication? Perhaps… The ending also shows us that in reality, Tristero was of lesser importance than Oedipa’s emotional development and the novel’s insight on life. If the reader by the end was only focusing on Tristero, Pynchon is now telling him, “Go back to page one and look again.”
This first major deception in his quest hit her like a train. She was powerless now to find the answer she desired so badly. Communication is a two-way street only and that is a problem according to Pynchon. Those communications problems, death, anonymity, misinterpretation, are what make the system fail. Pynchon also criticizes human nature itself in this final chapter. A rational person would never expect someone like Inverarity to even conceive such a sick act like this practical joke, if that is what it is. The high possibility of the entire novel being a joke is sickening, how can someone enjoy playing with another person’s head like that? Then I realized that is not as uncommon. The media keeps us in fear and governments tell us who our enemies are. Like in 1984, the whole purpose of society is to play with our heads to the will of the leaders.
Later on, Oedipa finds out what W.A.S.T.E means, “We Await Silent Tristero’s Empire.” One more answer given, but Oedipa, despite knowing a lot about Tristero, cannot finish giving up. Then, she hears news that the Tristero stamp collection is being auctioned as Lot 49. There is a mysterious bidder that wants to acquire the stamps and he seems the sole link left between Oedipa and Tristero. She goes to the auction and sits in the back looking for the bidder. “Oedipa sat alone, toward the back of the room, looking at the napes of necks, trying to guess which one was her target, her enemy, perhaps her proof (pg 152).” The novel ends without solving the mystery, without showing who is the bidder or what was Tristero in reality. Besides mocking the streamline whodunit ending of detective novels, the mysterious ending has a deeper meaning. The mystery doesn’t matter. Pynchon has told us everything worth saying, the satires, the analysis of human life and of society, everything. He also mocks the human necessity to have a goal and purpose here. The reader’s purpose was to analyze the book and find the answer to the mystery, Pynchon eliminates any possibility to see the ending. Miscommunication? Perhaps… The ending also shows us that in reality, Tristero was of lesser importance than Oedipa’s emotional development and the novel’s insight on life. If the reader by the end was only focusing on Tristero, Pynchon is now telling him, “Go back to page one and look again.”
Policy of Truth -- Crying of Lot 49
The fifth chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 begins, for me, the really strange part of this book. Oedipa goes to Berkeley and finds John Nefastis. She tries his machine to find out if she is sensitive, attempting to give it energy through her concentration and eyesight. This is obviously highly unlikely, but with everything else that is going on, Oedipa is willing to try. She tries so hard, perhaps trying to make sense out of her life, to make it work that she ends up manufacturing a change, such a slight change that she doesn’t know if it really happened or it was just her head. “And there. At the top edge of what she could see: hadn’t the right-hand piston moved a fraction? Just like her, the reader is left wondering, but this is rebuked when Nefastis destroys all his credibility by telling her to have out-of-boredom sex. “Please don’t cry. Come on in on the couch. The news will be on any minute. We can do it there (pg 86).” This scene addresses many things. Pynchon could be showing that when one’s world is growing chaotic, we look for an escape, a scapegoat. Oedipa wanted that scapegoat to be her “sensitivity”, she was looking for order in her disorganized world, and much like Maxwell’s Demon allegedly did for his small universe. Having the Demon failed to organize her world, Oedipa can only hope that finding out more about Tristero will save her.
Pynchon also uses this event to satirize the loss of value that sex has in modern times. Much like when Oedipa cheated with Metzger, when Nefastis asks her for sex he is doing it out of boredom, not out of love. Sex is just another thing to do, before it was the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. Pynchon satirizes this by placing these situations in the most absurd occasions, such as viewing an old movie betting whether the character dies or not or having sex during the news.
After this strange event, Oedipa decides to drive off and clear her head. She ends up in San Francisco. As she wonder into what will be a very long night for Oedipa, she enters a gay bar and meets a man who has the Tristero horn symbol in a pin. He tells her its represents Inamorati Anonymous which helps love-stricken people. Later on she continues in a bus ride throughout the city and begins to see the Tristero symbol everywhere, mentions of W.A.S.T.E everywhere and even people talking about it. This is such a heavy hit upon her conscience that the reader can see that Oedipa cannot differentiate from reality and dreams. She ends up in a poor apartment building where she meets an old sailor who asks her to deliver a letter to his wife through the W.A.S.T.E system and gives her the address to one of the Tristero mailboxes. She follows the Tristero mailman from there in a trip that leads her back to John Nefastis’ house. More confused than how she began, she returns to her hotel.
This is one of the most confusing events in the whole novel. It’s as if Pynchon places us inside Oedipa’s head so we can experience the overload of stress and pressure just like she is feeling it. Pynchon uses this event to show us how the human mind is capable of dissolving the line between reality and imagination. When things get too chaotic, the brain will attempt to eliminate all that stress by making us dream. Many times this helps us relax for those precious minutes to get our act back together. In Oedipa’s case, Pynchon does the exact opposite (making fun of dreams?) by turning her dream into a living nightmare. Murphy’s Law has a statement that says, “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” When Oedipa looks everywhere for the muted horn, I was reminded of this. Between reality and dreams, Oedipa was persuaded to completely believe the existence of Tristero. Here the truth theme from my previous blog arises again, can she believe her findings? With this same event Pynchon satirizes the common detective novel. In those novels, as the plot moves on the clues tend to help the reader solve the crime, In Lot 49 the exact opposite occurs. As she sees more muted horns, more mails and even a W.A.S.T.E mailman, Oedipa gets more confused and even deeper into the problem, no where nearer to a solution.
There’s a very interesting event when Oedipa reaches her hotel. She is driven into a deaf-mute dance party where every couple dances to the rhythm the man has in his head. “But how long, Oedipa thought could it go on before collisions became a serious hindrance? There would have to be collisions (pg 107).” Despite their various rhythms, the couples never crash in their entropy, in their chaos. There is no apparent communication and they move amongst themselves harmlessly. Again, Pynchon shows the communication theme. Words are problematic. They create conspiracies, fights and can be hurtful. In a universe, the deaf-mute universe, no such problem appears to exist. This reminded me of a Depeche Mode song titled Enjoy the Silence. The lyrics say:
Oedipa decides to return to her own town and talk with Dr. Hilarius to tell her she is imagining things. She doesn’t want to have to face the “reality” of Tristero, she just wants an explanation for everything that is going on around her. She finds that Dr. Hilarius has gone crazy, completely paranoid as his past has caught up to him. He kidnaps Oedipa and begins telling her how he used to do experiments on Jews during World War II. He is now afraid the Israelis are chasing him to punish him for his crimes. After a revealing conversation, the police arrest Hilarius and Oedipa is safe, but without answers. The character of Dr. Hilarius is a clear satire of many aspects. He makes fun of an apparently sane person, a psychiatrist by making him a paranoid freak who used to do experiment on Jews, how can someone trust him? Well he became a successful doctor with loyal clients, Oedipa herself. This makes the reader think to what extent can you trust others with helping you with your problems if they might have worse problems than yourself? He also mocks the apparent benefits of paranoia, “But I never took the drug, I chose to remain in relative paranoia, where at least I know who I am and who the others are (pg 111).” This is very ridiculous, yet many parts of society live that way. They buy guns for fears that might not exist, they hate people for reasons that might not be true, and in the end they live in permanent fear. Pynchon even attacks medicine by mocking the ridiculous use of LSD as a medicine in Dr. Hilarius’ clinic. This seems absurd, but the drugs used today as legal medicines are not that safer, they have serious side effects and, like LSD, blur reality and dreams.
After Oedipa leaves the clinic, she finds her husband, Mucho there and she meets him. She later finds out that he is taking LSD. Oedipa realizes she doesn’t really know her husband. Pynchon mocks the common junkie, they are like Mucho by saying the drug has helped them, that they can quit. In reality the drug is controlling them. After this event we can see that Oedipa has become almost completely isolated, Dr. Hilarius cannot help her, her husband is gone to drugs and the Demon didn’t give her answers. Isolation is the opposite of communication and it seems none gives benefits. Communication can lead to misinterpretations and fights, but isolation leads to paranoia like what happened to Dr. Hilarius. Which is better?
Pynchon also uses this event to satirize the loss of value that sex has in modern times. Much like when Oedipa cheated with Metzger, when Nefastis asks her for sex he is doing it out of boredom, not out of love. Sex is just another thing to do, before it was the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. Pynchon satirizes this by placing these situations in the most absurd occasions, such as viewing an old movie betting whether the character dies or not or having sex during the news.
After this strange event, Oedipa decides to drive off and clear her head. She ends up in San Francisco. As she wonder into what will be a very long night for Oedipa, she enters a gay bar and meets a man who has the Tristero horn symbol in a pin. He tells her its represents Inamorati Anonymous which helps love-stricken people. Later on she continues in a bus ride throughout the city and begins to see the Tristero symbol everywhere, mentions of W.A.S.T.E everywhere and even people talking about it. This is such a heavy hit upon her conscience that the reader can see that Oedipa cannot differentiate from reality and dreams. She ends up in a poor apartment building where she meets an old sailor who asks her to deliver a letter to his wife through the W.A.S.T.E system and gives her the address to one of the Tristero mailboxes. She follows the Tristero mailman from there in a trip that leads her back to John Nefastis’ house. More confused than how she began, she returns to her hotel.
This is one of the most confusing events in the whole novel. It’s as if Pynchon places us inside Oedipa’s head so we can experience the overload of stress and pressure just like she is feeling it. Pynchon uses this event to show us how the human mind is capable of dissolving the line between reality and imagination. When things get too chaotic, the brain will attempt to eliminate all that stress by making us dream. Many times this helps us relax for those precious minutes to get our act back together. In Oedipa’s case, Pynchon does the exact opposite (making fun of dreams?) by turning her dream into a living nightmare. Murphy’s Law has a statement that says, “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” When Oedipa looks everywhere for the muted horn, I was reminded of this. Between reality and dreams, Oedipa was persuaded to completely believe the existence of Tristero. Here the truth theme from my previous blog arises again, can she believe her findings? With this same event Pynchon satirizes the common detective novel. In those novels, as the plot moves on the clues tend to help the reader solve the crime, In Lot 49 the exact opposite occurs. As she sees more muted horns, more mails and even a W.A.S.T.E mailman, Oedipa gets more confused and even deeper into the problem, no where nearer to a solution.
There’s a very interesting event when Oedipa reaches her hotel. She is driven into a deaf-mute dance party where every couple dances to the rhythm the man has in his head. “But how long, Oedipa thought could it go on before collisions became a serious hindrance? There would have to be collisions (pg 107).” Despite their various rhythms, the couples never crash in their entropy, in their chaos. There is no apparent communication and they move amongst themselves harmlessly. Again, Pynchon shows the communication theme. Words are problematic. They create conspiracies, fights and can be hurtful. In a universe, the deaf-mute universe, no such problem appears to exist. This reminded me of a Depeche Mode song titled Enjoy the Silence. The lyrics say:
Vows are spokenBoth Pynchon and Depeche Mode allude to the same thing: words are not the most effective way to communicate, they generate confusion and have many interpretations; therefore they are meaningless.
To be broken
Feelings are intense
Words are trivial
Pleasures remain
So does the pain
Words are meaningless
And forgettable
Oedipa decides to return to her own town and talk with Dr. Hilarius to tell her she is imagining things. She doesn’t want to have to face the “reality” of Tristero, she just wants an explanation for everything that is going on around her. She finds that Dr. Hilarius has gone crazy, completely paranoid as his past has caught up to him. He kidnaps Oedipa and begins telling her how he used to do experiments on Jews during World War II. He is now afraid the Israelis are chasing him to punish him for his crimes. After a revealing conversation, the police arrest Hilarius and Oedipa is safe, but without answers. The character of Dr. Hilarius is a clear satire of many aspects. He makes fun of an apparently sane person, a psychiatrist by making him a paranoid freak who used to do experiment on Jews, how can someone trust him? Well he became a successful doctor with loyal clients, Oedipa herself. This makes the reader think to what extent can you trust others with helping you with your problems if they might have worse problems than yourself? He also mocks the apparent benefits of paranoia, “But I never took the drug, I chose to remain in relative paranoia, where at least I know who I am and who the others are (pg 111).” This is very ridiculous, yet many parts of society live that way. They buy guns for fears that might not exist, they hate people for reasons that might not be true, and in the end they live in permanent fear. Pynchon even attacks medicine by mocking the ridiculous use of LSD as a medicine in Dr. Hilarius’ clinic. This seems absurd, but the drugs used today as legal medicines are not that safer, they have serious side effects and, like LSD, blur reality and dreams.
After Oedipa leaves the clinic, she finds her husband, Mucho there and she meets him. She later finds out that he is taking LSD. Oedipa realizes she doesn’t really know her husband. Pynchon mocks the common junkie, they are like Mucho by saying the drug has helped them, that they can quit. In reality the drug is controlling them. After this event we can see that Oedipa has become almost completely isolated, Dr. Hilarius cannot help her, her husband is gone to drugs and the Demon didn’t give her answers. Isolation is the opposite of communication and it seems none gives benefits. Communication can lead to misinterpretations and fights, but isolation leads to paranoia like what happened to Dr. Hilarius. Which is better?
Get your facts right, check your sources.... The Crying of Lot 49
The fourth chapter of The Crying of lot 49 really begins showing the reader the alleged conspiracy brewing around Oedipa. In one of Inverarity’s companies, Yoyodyne, Oedipa meets Stanley Koteks who is drawing Tristero’s symbol in a folder. Oedipa begins talking with him and the conversation leads to patent laws and corporations in America. Koteks asks Oedipa, who tells him she is a stockholder, to reform patent laws so the individual get recognition like the inventors of old. He criticizes how now everyone is part of a “team” or “task force” and he is lost amongst the paperwork while the leaders of the corporation get all the credit. Ironically, Oedipa was at a stockholder meeting where everyone sang along to a song that called for teamwork and unity. “To the end we swear undying / Loyalty to you (pg 65).” Pynchon is probably showing this contradiction to criticize megacorporations in which everyone is just a number and nothing else, yet the call for teamwork. It is to note that the ones that sang were stockholders, some of the highest positions in the company, the ones that obtain the dividends and recognition and are the ones that urge teamwork because they profit from other people’s work. Stanley’s conversation makes Oedipa start to believe a giant conspiracy involving many different areas and people is underway. Stanley points Oedipa to a Berkeley scientist, John Nefastis, who has invented a perpetual motion machine. This machine however, can only work with “sensitive” people.
Oedipa gets a book with The Courier’s Tragedy in it and reads to find out more about Tristero. She finds some strange annotations from a Berkely publisher so she decides to go there and meet the publisher and Nefastis. On her way, she stops at a retirement home property of Inverarity and there she meets a random old man who tells her about his grandfather who rode at the time of the Pony Express. He narrates how he killed some fake-indians who carried rings with the Tristero symbol. Chilled, Oedipa goes back to San Narcisso to organize her thoughts. Could this be a strange coincidence or is it just Oedipa’s paranoia and underlying wish for a change in her life?
Her worries are worsened when she meets with a stamp expert who finds some strange stamps in Inverarity’s collection. There are some that have the Tristero symbol, some American and some German, and Oedipa now believes this is a bigger conspiracy and for time-spanning than she had thought. Still the strange versions of The Courier’s Tragedy, the fake-indian ring, and the fraudulent stamps make the fact of determining what is really going on a monumental task. Pynchon shows this issue to show how even today, with science and vast knowledge, truth is still uncertain. Can a machine (Maxwell’s Demon) defy an established scientific law? Who can we trust as a source? How do we relate events? This reminds me of what we are constantly told to do in school, “Get your facts right, check your sources.” The internet has given students countless of places to obtain information from, but which do we believe? Wkipedia? A blog? A newspage? Whatever we choose, information is always being monitored, changed and edited to suit different objectives. Could we be living as the citizens in 1984? Under the information from a “Ministry of Truth” that shows us what they want us to believe? Pynchon wants us to rethink our concept of truth. This theme greatly influences the overall them of he novel which is communication. After all, is it possible to truly communicate without the truth?
Oedipa gets a book with The Courier’s Tragedy in it and reads to find out more about Tristero. She finds some strange annotations from a Berkely publisher so she decides to go there and meet the publisher and Nefastis. On her way, she stops at a retirement home property of Inverarity and there she meets a random old man who tells her about his grandfather who rode at the time of the Pony Express. He narrates how he killed some fake-indians who carried rings with the Tristero symbol. Chilled, Oedipa goes back to San Narcisso to organize her thoughts. Could this be a strange coincidence or is it just Oedipa’s paranoia and underlying wish for a change in her life?
Her worries are worsened when she meets with a stamp expert who finds some strange stamps in Inverarity’s collection. There are some that have the Tristero symbol, some American and some German, and Oedipa now believes this is a bigger conspiracy and for time-spanning than she had thought. Still the strange versions of The Courier’s Tragedy, the fake-indian ring, and the fraudulent stamps make the fact of determining what is really going on a monumental task. Pynchon shows this issue to show how even today, with science and vast knowledge, truth is still uncertain. Can a machine (Maxwell’s Demon) defy an established scientific law? Who can we trust as a source? How do we relate events? This reminds me of what we are constantly told to do in school, “Get your facts right, check your sources.” The internet has given students countless of places to obtain information from, but which do we believe? Wkipedia? A blog? A newspage? Whatever we choose, information is always being monitored, changed and edited to suit different objectives. Could we be living as the citizens in 1984? Under the information from a “Ministry of Truth” that shows us what they want us to believe? Pynchon wants us to rethink our concept of truth. This theme greatly influences the overall them of he novel which is communication. After all, is it possible to truly communicate without the truth?
jueves, 27 de marzo de 2008
Conspiracy of One -- The Crying of Lot 49
The third chapter of the Crying of Lot 49 begins by foreshadowing events to come. “If one object behind her discovery of what she was to label the Tristero System or often only the Tristero… (pg 31)” This left me wondering, a big curiosity as to what it could be. Perhaps Pynchon intended this to give the reader as much curiosity as Oedipa had on the Tristero. Pynchon is trying to lead us exactly to where he wants. Then he starts showing us small hints of something new happening, “Report all obscene mail to your potsmaster (pg 33).” First the foreshadow and then the small typo which is later noticed by Oedipa makes the reader really begin to seek the connection of the events. Is this purposely done by Pynchon? As many other things in the book I believe so.
Oedipa and Metzger go to a nightclub called The Scope and there they meet Mike Fallopian, a right-wing extremist. His society is very radical in its belief of free enterprise and capitalism to such an extent that they use an underground mail system because the U.S Postal Service had monopolized the mail. Could Pynchon mock the right-wingers by making them take a stand on such a silly matter as the post? Is this a bigger symbol for the defiance of authority in the world? Perhaps it’s both. As a satire, the novel can simply be making fun of right wings. Even the name of the extremist is funny, Fallopian? However, with the whole context of Tristero and Potsmaster, joined by the strange feelings Oedipa has, the reader would be guided to believe there’s more to practically everything to this book. What it really is seems easily debatable either way.
Later on in the chapter, Oedipa goes to Fangoso Lagoons and meets a lawyer who is suing Inverarity for not paying some bones his client sold to the corporation and were used to make charcoal or for scuba diving decorations. The bones were originally the corpses of WWII American soldiers who died in a battle in Italy. This reminded one of Oedipa’s companions, a member of The Paranoids, about a play called The Courier’s Tragedy which related a similar story. People are also killed by a lake and are thrown in, making a connection with Inverarity’s bones. They also mention Trystero, “No Hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow, / Who’s once been set his tryst with Trystero (pg 58).” Here Oedipa “clicks” and feels a strange attraction to the word. After the play, she goes backstage to talk with the director and ask about the bones in the lake, but she ends up talking about Trystero. The director, Randolph Driblette, tells Oedipa she is thinking too much about the words and he simply wrote a play to entertain, there’s no meaning to it.
These events are very interesting, Pynchon guides the reader through the events in a way that makes us feel there is something strange in them, something worth noting. Even the name of the Lagoons, Fangoso, tries to tell the reader there is something “muddy” going on. Here there is some satire regarding suits and the law. Manny di Presso is suing Inverarity for not paying for some bones, but the origin of the bones is in fact, illegal. Distrurbing resting places of the dead, especially soldiers killed in combat would not be looked upon well in court, still the lawsuit is happening. Could Pynchon be mocking the absurdities that Americans use to sue other people? I remember once hearing about a thief who sued the owners of a house he broke into because he hurt himself while entering! When Driblette tells Oedipa she is analyzing too much, I saw that comment addressed at the reader too. Pynchon has led us to a state of wonder where everything has meaning and now, when he says Oedipa analyses too much he is telling the reader he is looking in vain for meaning. “Hey I am just making fun of society….including you” is what Pynchon might be telling us.
Oedipa and Metzger go to a nightclub called The Scope and there they meet Mike Fallopian, a right-wing extremist. His society is very radical in its belief of free enterprise and capitalism to such an extent that they use an underground mail system because the U.S Postal Service had monopolized the mail. Could Pynchon mock the right-wingers by making them take a stand on such a silly matter as the post? Is this a bigger symbol for the defiance of authority in the world? Perhaps it’s both. As a satire, the novel can simply be making fun of right wings. Even the name of the extremist is funny, Fallopian? However, with the whole context of Tristero and Potsmaster, joined by the strange feelings Oedipa has, the reader would be guided to believe there’s more to practically everything to this book. What it really is seems easily debatable either way.
Later on in the chapter, Oedipa goes to Fangoso Lagoons and meets a lawyer who is suing Inverarity for not paying some bones his client sold to the corporation and were used to make charcoal or for scuba diving decorations. The bones were originally the corpses of WWII American soldiers who died in a battle in Italy. This reminded one of Oedipa’s companions, a member of The Paranoids, about a play called The Courier’s Tragedy which related a similar story. People are also killed by a lake and are thrown in, making a connection with Inverarity’s bones. They also mention Trystero, “No Hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow, / Who’s once been set his tryst with Trystero (pg 58).” Here Oedipa “clicks” and feels a strange attraction to the word. After the play, she goes backstage to talk with the director and ask about the bones in the lake, but she ends up talking about Trystero. The director, Randolph Driblette, tells Oedipa she is thinking too much about the words and he simply wrote a play to entertain, there’s no meaning to it.
These events are very interesting, Pynchon guides the reader through the events in a way that makes us feel there is something strange in them, something worth noting. Even the name of the Lagoons, Fangoso, tries to tell the reader there is something “muddy” going on. Here there is some satire regarding suits and the law. Manny di Presso is suing Inverarity for not paying for some bones, but the origin of the bones is in fact, illegal. Distrurbing resting places of the dead, especially soldiers killed in combat would not be looked upon well in court, still the lawsuit is happening. Could Pynchon be mocking the absurdities that Americans use to sue other people? I remember once hearing about a thief who sued the owners of a house he broke into because he hurt himself while entering! When Driblette tells Oedipa she is analyzing too much, I saw that comment addressed at the reader too. Pynchon has led us to a state of wonder where everything has meaning and now, when he says Oedipa analyses too much he is telling the reader he is looking in vain for meaning. “Hey I am just making fun of society….including you” is what Pynchon might be telling us.
martes, 25 de marzo de 2008
Blue Pill or Red Pill? The Crying of Lot 49
The world is filled with coincidences. I usually see them as simple events that my mind relates together but in reality are not connected or are guided by some mysterious force. In the second chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 I felt particularly intrigued by the many coincidences and weird feelings occurring throughout the novel. It makes me feel like there is a mysterious actor in this novel, working in the shadows for unknown reasons. How Metzger is speaking about his young acting career and at that very moment one of the movies he filmed when he was just a kid was passed on television in the very channel Oedipa tuned into. Like she said, it was unbelievable. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” That event was just strange and unexpected, yet its importance was great for the whole chapter. Another strange coincidence, maybe simply artistic in the novel, was the blowing of a light fuse by a band playing outside of Oedipa’s room just as her sexual relation came to a climax. The music and the intercourse being connected by an increasing crescendo of force and reaching their climax at the same time. Her climax and Metzger’s, when it came, coincided with every light in the place, including the TV tube, suddenly going out, dead, black. It was a curious experience (pg 30).” What importance do these coincidences have in the novel? Purely aesthetic and descriptive tools used by Pynchon, or do they hide a bigger meaning? I believe they have a higher meaning because Pynchon makes them stand out from other event, mentioning they were “a curious experience”. Hopefully their importance will become greater as the novel advances.
This reminded me of the movie The Matrix. Since the whole world is a program and humans are inmerssed in it, there shouldn't be errors and bugs. When Neo has a deja vu he takes it as a simple human mind trick, but his friends know its actually a glitch in the system. This strange look on coincidences and weird occurances gave me a similar feeling to what was happening on the novel.
This novel has given me a strange mood while reading it. Nothing has really happened but there is this feeling of “calm before the storm”, as if something big is going to happen. I especially felt this when Oedipa sees the whole city and has a strange event: “Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her; so in her first minute in San Narciso, a revelation just trembled past the threshold of her understanding (pg 14).” This whole analysis of a simple arrival of a city made me realize there is much more to these emotions than simple artistic devices, they must have a purpose and I am intrigued at what they could be.
I have noticed Pynchon uses a lot of commas in his sentences. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” In this excerpt there are seven commas, including commas for lists and for joining clauses. His sometimes choppy thought reminds me of how a confused or scared person begins to think, ideas just rambling inside their minds at a fast speed. Pynchon achieved that effect in the excerpt as Oedipa is very confused and the sentence clearly makes the reader feel that. Still commas often make the sentences long and confusing, forcing me to read a sentence twice to fully grasp its meaning.
This reminded me of the movie The Matrix. Since the whole world is a program and humans are inmerssed in it, there shouldn't be errors and bugs. When Neo has a deja vu he takes it as a simple human mind trick, but his friends know its actually a glitch in the system. This strange look on coincidences and weird occurances gave me a similar feeling to what was happening on the novel.
This novel has given me a strange mood while reading it. Nothing has really happened but there is this feeling of “calm before the storm”, as if something big is going to happen. I especially felt this when Oedipa sees the whole city and has a strange event: “Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her; so in her first minute in San Narciso, a revelation just trembled past the threshold of her understanding (pg 14).” This whole analysis of a simple arrival of a city made me realize there is much more to these emotions than simple artistic devices, they must have a purpose and I am intrigued at what they could be.
I have noticed Pynchon uses a lot of commas in his sentences. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” In this excerpt there are seven commas, including commas for lists and for joining clauses. His sometimes choppy thought reminds me of how a confused or scared person begins to think, ideas just rambling inside their minds at a fast speed. Pynchon achieved that effect in the excerpt as Oedipa is very confused and the sentence clearly makes the reader feel that. Still commas often make the sentences long and confusing, forcing me to read a sentence twice to fully grasp its meaning.
Emperatrix Oedipa -- The Crying of Lot 49
The first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 introduces us to Oedipa Maas, a woman who has strangely been chosen to execute the will of her former boyfriend Pierce Inverarity. The reason for this was unknown as Oedipa and Pierce had not had contact for a long time, the last time having been a weird three-in-the-morning call. Still, Oedipa is such a new character that I can expect anything from the novel; however, Pynchon foreshadows big and strange things, “As things developed, she was to have all manner of revelations. Hardly about Pierce Inverarity, or herself; but about what remained yet had somehow, before this, stayed away (pg 10).
The chapter and maybe the whole novel are written in a style that is pretty hard to follow. I felt very confused with Pynchon’s writing. His sentences are very long and are structured in a way hard to follow. Hopefully, I will get used to Pynchon’s writing.
The book seems to have interesting ideas, for example Mucho’s previous job of used car salesman seemed to have made a great mark on him, something I wouldn’t expect from that harmless job. When Pynchon begins describing how each car has part of its owner in it, his hopes and dreams and they are “an extension of themselves”. When we see that job from that perspective it is easier to understand Mucho’s situation. If Pynchon has such a unique perspective of the world, this book will prove very interesting.
Despite being confusing, the novel contains some very interesting descriptions, “There had hung the sense of buffering, insulation, she had noticed the absence of an intensity, as if watching a movie, just perceptibly out of focus, that the projectionist refused to fix (pg 10). That feeling is pretty strange, not fully shown by a word and Pynchon cleverly describes it like that slight annoyance in the movies which gives the reader a very vivid image of the emotion.
I found Pynchon’s choice for the character’s names deliberate and well developed. Oedipa obviously alludes to Oedipus, the famous Greek hero. The reason for this is yet to come but it gives perhaps an idea or it makes the reader purposely think of Oedipus while reading the novel. “Mucho” Maas describes the character’s personality. He has a lot going on in his head, with his obsession with the car lot and his personality as a DJ. Maybe further on in the book the name will become even more appropriate. Oeadipa’s shrink, Dr. Hilarius is very appropriately named as his whole personality is hilarious. His call in the middle of the night, his questions, his “connection” with Oedipa, his attempt to test LSD, all this makes him a very funny character.
The chapter and maybe the whole novel are written in a style that is pretty hard to follow. I felt very confused with Pynchon’s writing. His sentences are very long and are structured in a way hard to follow. Hopefully, I will get used to Pynchon’s writing.
The book seems to have interesting ideas, for example Mucho’s previous job of used car salesman seemed to have made a great mark on him, something I wouldn’t expect from that harmless job. When Pynchon begins describing how each car has part of its owner in it, his hopes and dreams and they are “an extension of themselves”. When we see that job from that perspective it is easier to understand Mucho’s situation. If Pynchon has such a unique perspective of the world, this book will prove very interesting.
Despite being confusing, the novel contains some very interesting descriptions, “There had hung the sense of buffering, insulation, she had noticed the absence of an intensity, as if watching a movie, just perceptibly out of focus, that the projectionist refused to fix (pg 10). That feeling is pretty strange, not fully shown by a word and Pynchon cleverly describes it like that slight annoyance in the movies which gives the reader a very vivid image of the emotion.
I found Pynchon’s choice for the character’s names deliberate and well developed. Oedipa obviously alludes to Oedipus, the famous Greek hero. The reason for this is yet to come but it gives perhaps an idea or it makes the reader purposely think of Oedipus while reading the novel. “Mucho” Maas describes the character’s personality. He has a lot going on in his head, with his obsession with the car lot and his personality as a DJ. Maybe further on in the book the name will become even more appropriate. Oeadipa’s shrink, Dr. Hilarius is very appropriately named as his whole personality is hilarious. His call in the middle of the night, his questions, his “connection” with Oedipa, his attempt to test LSD, all this makes him a very funny character.
A Biography on Society -- The Hollow Men
In his poem The Hollow Men, T.S Eliot narrates the views of the world from the eyes of a person who sees every other person as hollow. What does that mean? A hollow person is someone who has no emotion or personality? Despite this being an interesting hypothesis, I feel Eliot attempts to use the “Hollow” metaphor at a societal level. This could is supported by his title, The Hollow Men. Had Eliot referred to the individual he would have used “man” to state the feelings of a single person.
This first stanza of the poem is very powerful. It talks about society as a meaningless and worthless voice, much like a mouse in a cellar. Eliot’s use of “we” made me feel part of the poem and gave me a starting point for reflection. Interestingly, many of the verses are contradictions between them and this greatly highlights the purpose of this stanza. In the first two verses, “hollow” and “stuffed” have opposite meanings, why would Eliot use them to describe the same theme? The first word that came to my mind after reading these verses was “hypocrisy”. Humans are almost by their very nature two-faced. We tend to show others different, often purposely created, personalities of ourselves. This is what allows humans to be “hollow” and “stuffed” at the same time. By speaking while being “stuffed” as a different person, our voices are dried of all their meaning.
“Shape without form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion (line 11); “Again, Eliot uses these contradictions to describe humans, we have a body with actual form but that doesn’t give us a true shape. Our many masks can make us change appearances easily.
Next to the first stanza, this is another extremely powerful stanza for me. It talks about people who have died with “direct eyes”, perhaps not of old age but died unexpectedly? Soldiers killed by a bullet, a man killed by a car, all these I believe have met death with direct eyes. These people, Eliot believes, do not remember the violence of their deaths but the indifference given to them by society, by the hollow men. The stanza immediately reminded me of politics. It reminded me of politicians and businessmen who express their horror at death during war or hard times but in reality think about business and personal profits. Politicians, in my opinion, are the best example of hollow men. They are stuffed with words and empty thoughts but in reality they are hollow of many values.
The second section of the poem shows one of the masks of society’s hollow men:
The fourth section speaks of how the hollow men become when hardship hits them. When others are going through dire times, hollow men lift false hope towards them, but when hollow men themselves get hit they expect everything.
As their last chance, hollow men come together and attempt to work together. Interestingly, they “avoid speech”, they avoid the poison that made their society indifferent to hardships so it will hopefully turn its eyes back on them. “Sightless, unless /The eyes reappear (line 61)… The hope only /Of empty men (line 66).”
The fifth and last section of the poem concludes and reflects on this hollow men society. “Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow (line 74).” Hollow men live in the limbo of moral. They straddle between taking actions and just speaking of them, as Eliot would put it, Hollow men are masters of the Shadow. Eliot finishes the poem with a great, yet very disturbing phrase: “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper (line 99).” I usually picture the end of the human race as a war spectacle of biblical proportions, a terrible and gruesome sight, but fantastic in power. Eliot foreshadows that humans will end very differently, whimpering and begging for help. Which is true is left to be seen, but Eliot’s end gave me tingle down my spine.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning togetherHeadpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar (line 1)
This first stanza of the poem is very powerful. It talks about society as a meaningless and worthless voice, much like a mouse in a cellar. Eliot’s use of “we” made me feel part of the poem and gave me a starting point for reflection. Interestingly, many of the verses are contradictions between them and this greatly highlights the purpose of this stanza. In the first two verses, “hollow” and “stuffed” have opposite meanings, why would Eliot use them to describe the same theme? The first word that came to my mind after reading these verses was “hypocrisy”. Humans are almost by their very nature two-faced. We tend to show others different, often purposely created, personalities of ourselves. This is what allows humans to be “hollow” and “stuffed” at the same time. By speaking while being “stuffed” as a different person, our voices are dried of all their meaning.
“Shape without form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion (line 11); “Again, Eliot uses these contradictions to describe humans, we have a body with actual form but that doesn’t give us a true shape. Our many masks can make us change appearances easily.
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but onlyAs the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Next to the first stanza, this is another extremely powerful stanza for me. It talks about people who have died with “direct eyes”, perhaps not of old age but died unexpectedly? Soldiers killed by a bullet, a man killed by a car, all these I believe have met death with direct eyes. These people, Eliot believes, do not remember the violence of their deaths but the indifference given to them by society, by the hollow men. The stanza immediately reminded me of politics. It reminded me of politicians and businessmen who express their horror at death during war or hard times but in reality think about business and personal profits. Politicians, in my opinion, are the best example of hollow men. They are stuffed with words and empty thoughts but in reality they are hollow of many values.
The second section of the poem shows one of the masks of society’s hollow men:
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone (line 46).
The fourth section speaks of how the hollow men become when hardship hits them. When others are going through dire times, hollow men lift false hope towards them, but when hollow men themselves get hit they expect everything.
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river (line 57),
As their last chance, hollow men come together and attempt to work together. Interestingly, they “avoid speech”, they avoid the poison that made their society indifferent to hardships so it will hopefully turn its eyes back on them. “Sightless, unless /The eyes reappear (line 61)… The hope only /Of empty men (line 66).”
The fifth and last section of the poem concludes and reflects on this hollow men society. “Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow (line 74).” Hollow men live in the limbo of moral. They straddle between taking actions and just speaking of them, as Eliot would put it, Hollow men are masters of the Shadow. Eliot finishes the poem with a great, yet very disturbing phrase: “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper (line 99).” I usually picture the end of the human race as a war spectacle of biblical proportions, a terrible and gruesome sight, but fantastic in power. Eliot foreshadows that humans will end very differently, whimpering and begging for help. Which is true is left to be seen, but Eliot’s end gave me tingle down my spine.
What if? The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
In his poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S Eliot explores the life of a secret lover, someone who takes long to reveal his love.
In the first part of the poem he talks about the indecisive lovers which postpone their love eternally and eventually realize there is no time left to spend with their much desired love.
“And indeed there will be time,” this phrase is thought by many who do not dare show their true love to others for fear of failing or being rejected. The speaker mentions meeting the same people his lover knows, this seems like a plan of meeting his love’s friends and getting near her in this way. He also mentions time to “murder and create”, this sounds like a planned strategy as creation and destruction need thought and organization. The speaker believes a plan without fixed time and no hurry will lead him to his love; however, Eliot later shows the reader how this is not the case.
“Do I dare?” despite the secret lover’s plans and tranquility, everything comes to taking the step and showing your love. At this time no planning really helps. When the lover doesn’t dare, he grows old without knowing what his life would have been like had he dared. Then he reflects on his life of analysis and planning, “I have known them all already, know them all-- /Have know the evenings, morning, afternoons (line 49).” He shows how every step, every coffee spoon, was measured, how every phrase was formulated. He finally realizes what he was doing all that time, “And in short, I was afraid (line 86).” This whole tale reminds me of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel, El Amor en los Tiempos del Cólera. The main character spends over 50 years waiting on his love and after all those decades he finally was able to be with her after planning every aspect of their life.
If I was on that same situation, I would ask myself “Was it worth it?” Eliot also narrates this part of the lover’s life and states how foolish and worthless this life is.
He has been “politic, cautious, and meticulous” this might seem a good think as no rash decisions or impulses would be followed, but in the game of love this makes him look ridiculous and at times the Fool.
“Love Song” by The Cure
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am home again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am whole again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am young again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am fun again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am free again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am clean again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
This song by The Cure speaks about love and it basically talks about the things the character in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock couldn’t say in his life. Love made Eliot’s character afraid and unwilling to risk a change. In The Cure’s song, love makes the speaker show all his emotions and really makes him show his true self. His love makes him feel at home and even free from the world. “Whenever I’m alone with you / You make me feel like I am home again (line 1). “ Love is such a powerful emotion, so overwhelming that fully explaining it seems impossible. When The Cure states this love as taking the speaker back home it depicts the emotion simply, but home is such a personal and powerful memory that the reader can grasp what the speaker means.
The planning and fear of Eliot’s character made him never experience these simple, yet filling emotions from “Love Song”.
In the first part of the poem he talks about the indecisive lovers which postpone their love eternally and eventually realize there is no time left to spend with their much desired love.
And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the
street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there
will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will
be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of
hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate; (line 23)
“And indeed there will be time,” this phrase is thought by many who do not dare show their true love to others for fear of failing or being rejected. The speaker mentions meeting the same people his lover knows, this seems like a plan of meeting his love’s friends and getting near her in this way. He also mentions time to “murder and create”, this sounds like a planned strategy as creation and destruction need thought and organization. The speaker believes a plan without fixed time and no hurry will lead him to his love; however, Eliot later shows the reader how this is not the case.
And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I
dare?”
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the
middle of my hair—
[They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”]
My
morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and
modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
[They will say: “But how his arms and
legs are thin!”]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is
time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. (line 37)
“Do I dare?” despite the secret lover’s plans and tranquility, everything comes to taking the step and showing your love. At this time no planning really helps. When the lover doesn’t dare, he grows old without knowing what his life would have been like had he dared. Then he reflects on his life of analysis and planning, “I have known them all already, know them all-- /Have know the evenings, morning, afternoons (line 49).” He shows how every step, every coffee spoon, was measured, how every phrase was formulated. He finally realizes what he was doing all that time, “And in short, I was afraid (line 86).” This whole tale reminds me of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel, El Amor en los Tiempos del Cólera. The main character spends over 50 years waiting on his love and after all those decades he finally was able to be with her after planning every aspect of their life.
If I was on that same situation, I would ask myself “Was it worth it?” Eliot also narrates this part of the lover’s life and states how foolish and worthless this life is.
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or
two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of
use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit
obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
(line 112)
He has been “politic, cautious, and meticulous” this might seem a good think as no rash decisions or impulses would be followed, but in the game of love this makes him look ridiculous and at times the Fool.
“Love Song” by The Cure
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am home again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am whole again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am young again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am fun again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am free again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am clean again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
This song by The Cure speaks about love and it basically talks about the things the character in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock couldn’t say in his life. Love made Eliot’s character afraid and unwilling to risk a change. In The Cure’s song, love makes the speaker show all his emotions and really makes him show his true self. His love makes him feel at home and even free from the world. “Whenever I’m alone with you / You make me feel like I am home again (line 1). “ Love is such a powerful emotion, so overwhelming that fully explaining it seems impossible. When The Cure states this love as taking the speaker back home it depicts the emotion simply, but home is such a personal and powerful memory that the reader can grasp what the speaker means.
The planning and fear of Eliot’s character made him never experience these simple, yet filling emotions from “Love Song”.
lunes, 10 de marzo de 2008
The call of Jesus, Buddha, and Ovid -- The Waste Land Pts. 3,4 & 5
In sections three, four and five of The Waste Land, T.S Eliot uses many allusions to other texts and historical moments which have greatly affected humanity. Eliot effectively uses them as tools to give his epic a greater impact on the reader.
Tiresias was perhaps the most famous of Greek soothsayers. He was given the gift of seeing the future by the gods, but was blinded when he stumbled upon Athena during her bath. Why Eliot uses him in this part of the poem, when he is describing a sexual encounter between a man and a woman, is still not clear to me. Maybe Tiresias’ soothsaying could represent the inevitability of the sexual encounter and how humans are such animals that that sex could be predicted. Tiresias is also mentioned in Dante’s Inferno when he is shown in lower hell in the ring of the fraudulent. Dante shows him as a frau while Eliot shows him as a real soothsayer. During Dante’s time, it wouldn’t have been farfetched to believe in people who could predict the future but in the XX century it is far more unlikely to believe it. In The Waste Land that is exactly the case. Likely, Tiresias is simply a tool used by Eliot to unite his text with all kinds of cultures and beliefs and thus make it more universal.
The mentioning of Carthage is a very interesting one. This once-great city was burned to oblivion by the Roman Empire during the Punic Wars and it respresents the brutality of humans. The Romans enslaved over 50,000 people and burned the whole city, leaving few records. Much like the Lord did with Sodom and Gomorrah when they were destroyed by fire, the Romans did the same to Carthage. This is likely why Eliot describes the fall of Carthage and the Lord together. “The Fire Sermon” Is finished with this excerpt and thus very majestically states how human passion and impulse, like Roman hatred for Carthage or human decadence in Sodom, lead to fire and destruction.
Despite this stanza not containing any specific allusions to a text or character, after reading it I immediately thought of the Greek Tartarus. Here, people who challenge the Gods faced the worse punishment – desire. King Tantalus for example, was submerged up to his chin in water and placed in front of an apple tree. In that position he was condemned to eternal hunger and thirst. Much like the speaker in the poem who desires water while only obtaining rocks and grass, Tantalus is doomed to dissatisfaction and frustration. This is, I think, is the worse state for a person, to live in perpetual desire for something essential to our life.
Since I grew up under Catholicism, I was always told that there was always a guardian angel watching out for me, much like the figure that “walks always beside you.” We can’t see him, like the speaker states, but people who believe feel the presence of another being next to them. Could have Eliot chosen this, or something similar, when he wrote this stanza? He mentions a hooded figure, perhaps the author meant Death, which always accompanies us in life’s journey.
This allusion directly talks about the famous children’s song “London Bridge”. It describes how one of civilization’s most outstanding landmarks, London Bridge, fell. I believe Eliot attempted to use this song to show how society is crippling and falling down without humans noticing. Humans simply forget the event or rid it of importance, like “London Bridge”.
A very interesting part of this study was seeing how all human history and human beliefs can be written down in a single poem. Eliot manages to place Greeks, Romans, Catholics, and Hindus in a way that they all flow flawlessly in a call for human mental revival. I found this one of the most enduring aspects of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land
THE river's tent is broken: the last fingers of leafEliot uses the nymphs, Greek mythological creatures that dwell in springs, rivers and wells, to give the Thames River life. Nymphs were female, playful creatures that interacted a lot with humans, much like a river interacts with people today; however, Eliot says that the nymphs have left the river. The Thames still exists but all its life and original nature are gone. This is what society has done to nature, rid it of all spark, of all life. The contrast between the beautiful and joyful nymphs with the dread of a dead river gives the text a great impact on the reader.
Clutch and sink into the
wet bank. The wind
Crosses the brown land, unheard. The nymphs are departed
(sec 3 line 175).
I Tiresias, old man with wrinkled dugs
Perceived the scene, and foretold the
rest—
I too awaited the expected guest (sec 3 line 228).
Tiresias was perhaps the most famous of Greek soothsayers. He was given the gift of seeing the future by the gods, but was blinded when he stumbled upon Athena during her bath. Why Eliot uses him in this part of the poem, when he is describing a sexual encounter between a man and a woman, is still not clear to me. Maybe Tiresias’ soothsaying could represent the inevitability of the sexual encounter and how humans are such animals that that sex could be predicted. Tiresias is also mentioned in Dante’s Inferno when he is shown in lower hell in the ring of the fraudulent. Dante shows him as a frau while Eliot shows him as a real soothsayer. During Dante’s time, it wouldn’t have been farfetched to believe in people who could predict the future but in the XX century it is far more unlikely to believe it. In The Waste Land that is exactly the case. Likely, Tiresias is simply a tool used by Eliot to unite his text with all kinds of cultures and beliefs and thus make it more universal.
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord
Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest
burning (sec 3 line
307)
The mentioning of Carthage is a very interesting one. This once-great city was burned to oblivion by the Roman Empire during the Punic Wars and it respresents the brutality of humans. The Romans enslaved over 50,000 people and burned the whole city, leaving few records. Much like the Lord did with Sodom and Gomorrah when they were destroyed by fire, the Romans did the same to Carthage. This is likely why Eliot describes the fall of Carthage and the Lord together. “The Fire Sermon” Is finished with this excerpt and thus very majestically states how human passion and impulse, like Roman hatred for Carthage or human decadence in Sodom, lead to fire and destruction.
If there were water
And no rock
If there were
rock
And also water
And water
A
spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the
sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass
singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the
hermit-thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop
drop drop
But there is no water (sec 5 line 346)
Despite this stanza not containing any specific allusions to a text or character, after reading it I immediately thought of the Greek Tartarus. Here, people who challenge the Gods faced the worse punishment – desire. King Tantalus for example, was submerged up to his chin in water and placed in front of an apple tree. In that position he was condemned to eternal hunger and thirst. Much like the speaker in the poem who desires water while only obtaining rocks and grass, Tantalus is doomed to dissatisfaction and frustration. This is, I think, is the worse state for a person, to live in perpetual desire for something essential to our life.
Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only
you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always
another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I
do not know whether a man or a woman
—But who is that on the other side of
you (sec 5 line 361)?
Since I grew up under Catholicism, I was always told that there was always a guardian angel watching out for me, much like the figure that “walks always beside you.” We can’t see him, like the speaker states, but people who believe feel the presence of another being next to them. Could have Eliot chosen this, or something similar, when he wrote this stanza? He mentions a hooded figure, perhaps the author meant Death, which always accompanies us in life’s journey.
Ganga was sunken, and the limp leavesEliot mentions Hindu mythology in this stanza. Ganga is the name for the Ganges River in India, perhaps one of the most meaningful and important objects to Indian life. When Eliot describes such a great power sunken and limp, it gives the reader a tremendous impact and clearly states how even the most powerful can be in need. Following Ganga, Eliot mentions Himavant, the Hindu god of Snow, and he is believed to represent the Himalayas. How Ganga depends on Himavant might show how even the most powerful and important are not almighty and omnipresent.
Waited for rain, while the black
clouds
Gathered far distant, over Himavant.
The jungle crouched, humped in
silence (sec 5 line 395).
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down (sec 5 line 426)
This allusion directly talks about the famous children’s song “London Bridge”. It describes how one of civilization’s most outstanding landmarks, London Bridge, fell. I believe Eliot attempted to use this song to show how society is crippling and falling down without humans noticing. Humans simply forget the event or rid it of importance, like “London Bridge”.
A very interesting part of this study was seeing how all human history and human beliefs can be written down in a single poem. Eliot manages to place Greeks, Romans, Catholics, and Hindus in a way that they all flow flawlessly in a call for human mental revival. I found this one of the most enduring aspects of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land
martes, 4 de marzo de 2008
Earth & Air - Power & Appearance -- The Waste Land I-II
After reading the first tow parts of "the Waste Land" once more, I believe my belief regarding Eliot's meaning in the poem seems to be confirmed. I believe that Eliot depicts modern human world as a decadent society and shows the elements that "compose" a world is his way of passing his message to the reader. He does uses the classical elements of fire, earth, water and air to show modern society, but this is not to be taken literally. Eliot uses these elements to represent what he believes are the main aspects of this decadent society.
In my previous entry of "The Burial of the Dead", I gave a general idea of this theory, but I feel it lacked a little depth. During the whole section, the narrator describes geographical landmarks such as mountains, deserts, lakes and cities. Next to this, Eliot also describes climate and seasons. What is Eliots pupose in carrying this general theme? I believe it attempts to show powerlessness and power itself. Mountains and deserts are vast things, much bigger than a human or beyond a human to change dramatically. They are power.
A human cannot possibly effectively control climate, they are powerless against it. We are forced to accept it or be surprised by it, like the narrator was by Summer. Of course summer can be predicted to an extent, but its effects and its intensity cannot be accurately predicted, much less controlled.
In the second stanza of the section, Eliot depicts a desert, barren land. He also uses words such as "broken", "rubbish", "dead", and "fear". For this I picture it as an apocalyptic area. This strong imagery shows man's greatest power in the world: destruction. Human capability for destruction is tremendous and it can have world-wide effects, such as pollution and war. By showing how "Earth" or "Nature" in the section makes humans powerless and how it is capable of great destruction, I believe Eliot uses this as a metaphor for human society. As a whole it is acapble of tremendous power and destruction, and when an individual, maybe someone of different beliefs, is attacked by it the person is completely impotent to combat society.
This is an interesting stanza of the poem. It does not mention vast landmasses or feelings of impotence; however, it still contains products form the Earth such as the Hyacinths. This flower is believed to be the Flower of the Orient, and thus carries great meaning. The sun sets in the orient and by this it can represent the end of an era or time. If we join this with the beauty that a flower carries, we see how Eliot mentions the end of a good or beautiful time. Having lived WWI, and the great expectations of "The War to End War" and the League of nations must have brought great hope for human progress after unimaginable death during the war. However, after the great disilusionment that came after the failure of the League of Nations and a prediction of war, society was seen as irreparable. This is represented by Eliot in the stanza above, "I was neither Living nor dead, and I knew nothing (sec 1 line 40)." The next line reads, "Looking into the heart of light, the silence (sec 1 line 41)." The narrator is looking into light, into good and hope, but he only finds silence. Society has no goodness to offer.
The next stanza talks about the future. The narrator is shown his fortune with the cards of the Tarot. The narrator is given the Phoenician Sailor, Belladona the Lady of Situations, the Man with Three Staves, the Wheel and the One-eyed Merchant. He mentions that "I do not find / The Hanged Man (sec 1 line 56)." The Tarot is completely foreign to me and I do not know how to interpret these cards, but I'm sure these carry heavy metaphorical meanings in the poem. The Phoenician Sailor, is known to be an invention as this card does not exist in the Tarot deck. What did Eliot intend it to represent? This card is mentioned throughout the poem, even in an entire section, "Death by Water."
Unreal City. This final stanza speaks mostly about death. “A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, / I had not thought death had undone so many (sec 1 line 62).” What kind of death does Eliot mean? It is not physical, as there are people flowing through the city. I believe he is talking about a moral and spiritual death. The grim view of society after war and the failure of peace would make people feel that society was dead, irreparable. ”That corpse you planted last year in your garden, /'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? / 'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed (sec 1 line 71)? Besides spiritual death, we can see the corpse buried in the garden as all the sacrifice made by society for peace during the war. The garden shows how everyone was affected in their most personal aspects. The sudden frost again alludes to climate, to power and how we cannot control it. Society killed our sacrifice and we are still waiting for the rewards it was supposed to bring.
“A Game of Chess” speaks of another element of modern society: air. Like European courtiers that often spoke lies and acted like they were someone else, modern society speaks and shows itself as if it was another thing.
In vials of ivory and colored glass Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes, Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air That freshened from the window, these ascended In flattening the prolonged candle flames, Flung their smoke into the laquearia, Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling. (Sec 2 line 87)
This vivid description depicts a room filled with fragrances and exotic essences that make it feel mysterious, different, something that, in reality, it might not be. This resembles humans because our species is always trying to hide its true being with a “civilized” mask. The savagery of war is hidden behind Laws and Customs of War. Domination of others is hidden behind politics and laws. With this, Eliot makes a call to the reader to realize how humans live in a fragrance-impregnated society.
But what does the author attempt to uncover after unmasking society?
The person asking the questions in this excerpt seems insecure, scared. His companion, the person who answers, acts calmly and sure of himself. When T.S Eliot read this part of the poem, he talked briskly and at a higher tone during the questions and at a slower and lower voice during the answers. This clearly shows the feelings intended for these speakers. The voices, the words each one speaks again represent society. The questions represent individual humans, people who feel scared and overwhelmed in a world filled with death and ignorance. The responses I feel are the answers of society to the individual, sure of itself and even bored by the whining of the individual. This shows the reader how society is in self denial, desiring to be secure and powerful but in reality it is scared and vulnerable.
Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing? (Sec 2 line 122)
As T.S Eliot reads the questions above, he seems exasperated, angry, and resentful. He is asking society why it is keeping this mask. No, it’s asking why the people allow that mask to be placed. Why does the individual seem to forget his true beliefs and falls into slavery under society? Can’t society remember its mistakes and prevent them? After such a terrible event as war, why did it go back to the way of life that led to that butchery?
This is what I feel was missing to the analysis of the first two parts of The Waste Land, after writing this and reading the sections several times I feel I have a greater understanding of T.S Eliot’s purpose when writing his masterpiece.
In my previous entry of "The Burial of the Dead", I gave a general idea of this theory, but I feel it lacked a little depth. During the whole section, the narrator describes geographical landmarks such as mountains, deserts, lakes and cities. Next to this, Eliot also describes climate and seasons. What is Eliots pupose in carrying this general theme? I believe it attempts to show powerlessness and power itself. Mountains and deserts are vast things, much bigger than a human or beyond a human to change dramatically. They are power.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower
of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, (sec 1 line 9)
A human cannot possibly effectively control climate, they are powerless against it. We are forced to accept it or be surprised by it, like the narrator was by Summer. Of course summer can be predicted to an extent, but its effects and its intensity cannot be accurately predicted, much less controlled.
In the second stanza of the section, Eliot depicts a desert, barren land. He also uses words such as "broken", "rubbish", "dead", and "fear". For this I picture it as an apocalyptic area. This strong imagery shows man's greatest power in the world: destruction. Human capability for destruction is tremendous and it can have world-wide effects, such as pollution and war. By showing how "Earth" or "Nature" in the section makes humans powerless and how it is capable of great destruction, I believe Eliot uses this as a metaphor for human society. As a whole it is acapble of tremendous power and destruction, and when an individual, maybe someone of different beliefs, is attacked by it the person is completely impotent to combat society.
"You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
They called me the
hyacinth girl."
--Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed,
I was neither Living nor
dead, and I knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the
silence.
Oed' und leer das Meer. (sec 1 line 35)
This is an interesting stanza of the poem. It does not mention vast landmasses or feelings of impotence; however, it still contains products form the Earth such as the Hyacinths. This flower is believed to be the Flower of the Orient, and thus carries great meaning. The sun sets in the orient and by this it can represent the end of an era or time. If we join this with the beauty that a flower carries, we see how Eliot mentions the end of a good or beautiful time. Having lived WWI, and the great expectations of "The War to End War" and the League of nations must have brought great hope for human progress after unimaginable death during the war. However, after the great disilusionment that came after the failure of the League of Nations and a prediction of war, society was seen as irreparable. This is represented by Eliot in the stanza above, "I was neither Living nor dead, and I knew nothing (sec 1 line 40)." The next line reads, "Looking into the heart of light, the silence (sec 1 line 41)." The narrator is looking into light, into good and hope, but he only finds silence. Society has no goodness to offer.
The next stanza talks about the future. The narrator is shown his fortune with the cards of the Tarot. The narrator is given the Phoenician Sailor, Belladona the Lady of Situations, the Man with Three Staves, the Wheel and the One-eyed Merchant. He mentions that "I do not find / The Hanged Man (sec 1 line 56)." The Tarot is completely foreign to me and I do not know how to interpret these cards, but I'm sure these carry heavy metaphorical meanings in the poem. The Phoenician Sailor, is known to be an invention as this card does not exist in the Tarot deck. What did Eliot intend it to represent? This card is mentioned throughout the poem, even in an entire section, "Death by Water."
Unreal City. This final stanza speaks mostly about death. “A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, / I had not thought death had undone so many (sec 1 line 62).” What kind of death does Eliot mean? It is not physical, as there are people flowing through the city. I believe he is talking about a moral and spiritual death. The grim view of society after war and the failure of peace would make people feel that society was dead, irreparable. ”That corpse you planted last year in your garden, /'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? / 'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed (sec 1 line 71)? Besides spiritual death, we can see the corpse buried in the garden as all the sacrifice made by society for peace during the war. The garden shows how everyone was affected in their most personal aspects. The sudden frost again alludes to climate, to power and how we cannot control it. Society killed our sacrifice and we are still waiting for the rewards it was supposed to bring.
“A Game of Chess” speaks of another element of modern society: air. Like European courtiers that often spoke lies and acted like they were someone else, modern society speaks and shows itself as if it was another thing.
In vials of ivory and colored glass Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes, Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air That freshened from the window, these ascended In flattening the prolonged candle flames, Flung their smoke into the laquearia, Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling. (Sec 2 line 87)
This vivid description depicts a room filled with fragrances and exotic essences that make it feel mysterious, different, something that, in reality, it might not be. This resembles humans because our species is always trying to hide its true being with a “civilized” mask. The savagery of war is hidden behind Laws and Customs of War. Domination of others is hidden behind politics and laws. With this, Eliot makes a call to the reader to realize how humans live in a fragrance-impregnated society.
But what does the author attempt to uncover after unmasking society?
"What is that noise?"
The wind under the door.
"What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?"
Nothing again nothing. (Sec 2 line 118)
The person asking the questions in this excerpt seems insecure, scared. His companion, the person who answers, acts calmly and sure of himself. When T.S Eliot read this part of the poem, he talked briskly and at a higher tone during the questions and at a slower and lower voice during the answers. This clearly shows the feelings intended for these speakers. The voices, the words each one speaks again represent society. The questions represent individual humans, people who feel scared and overwhelmed in a world filled with death and ignorance. The responses I feel are the answers of society to the individual, sure of itself and even bored by the whining of the individual. This shows the reader how society is in self denial, desiring to be secure and powerful but in reality it is scared and vulnerable.
Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing? (Sec 2 line 122)
As T.S Eliot reads the questions above, he seems exasperated, angry, and resentful. He is asking society why it is keeping this mask. No, it’s asking why the people allow that mask to be placed. Why does the individual seem to forget his true beliefs and falls into slavery under society? Can’t society remember its mistakes and prevent them? After such a terrible event as war, why did it go back to the way of life that led to that butchery?
This is what I feel was missing to the analysis of the first two parts of The Waste Land, after writing this and reading the sections several times I feel I have a greater understanding of T.S Eliot’s purpose when writing his masterpiece.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)