English According To Orwell

Orwell's argument is that today's English is very much like political writing. Political writing is the same, it has some variation between parties but generally it is the same. English is decaying by the uses of words and phrases that lack real meaning and by its incorrect use. Many of this words and clichés have been so overused that they lack the real meaning they were intended to have. According to Orwell: "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around."

Irony is shown when Orwell ends the paragraph of Operators Or Verbal False Limbs with so on and so forth after criticizing these type of phrases. Another case of irony is when he starts to use political writing after saying it to be a bad way of writing.

Dying Metaphors: Dying Metaphors are worn out metaphors which have lost their initial meaning. These are used to save people the time and trouble of creating a new phrase.

Pretentious Diction: Pretentious Diction are words and phrases in writing that are used to show higher knowledge in the subject. The use of scientific words to show that you are a scientist when you can use normal words is an example.

Meaningless Words: Words that have no real meaning and are overused. These words lack a concrete and clear meaning that can mislead the reader. One example of this is democracy because it doesn't have a concrete meaning it is more a collection of meanings.

1. Use words that have concrete meaning.
   
2. Avoid using already used metaphors.
   
3. Be original.
   
4. Use short words instead of lengthy ones.
   
5. Use common English.
   
6. Cut out unneeded words.
   
7. Use active voice.
   
8. Use phrases and words that are precise.
   
9. Let the meaning choose the word, not the other way around.
   
10. Avoid using foreign words, scientific words and jargons.
    

Leaves Of Grass Ch 11-20: The Essence Of Life

Today while I was getting home from school I managed to experience nature in a different way. Today it rained pretty heavily and I am not the number one fan of rainy days. First, I couldn't go to tennis practice because the courts were wet and secondly, it is not the most beautiful sight of the skies. I know that rain is needed for the crops and plants and maybe it was time for a little rain because there were some warm days before. Whitman says "I am enamour'd of growing out-doors, Of men that live among cattle, or taste of the ocean or woods" (246). I can perfectly agree with him. The outdoors and nature are what life is about. Our relationship with nature and what nature provides us is essential for both our living and survival. I feel at peace when I am able to see a forming of nature that man has not laid hands on it for a long while without thinking about anything. This formation of nature doesn't have to be as massive as a mountain it can even be a river. It can also be a thunderstorm like the one I was able to see today that reminds me that we are still human and that nature has much more power than us and can destroy us in any second. Animals are the other part of nature that Whitman talks about in this quotation. He says he loves the men that live with cattle. I think that Whitman could have said that the simplest men are the happiest because they live among animals. Men who live along cattle can be a form a very basic and simplistic man that doesn't need much to be happy, maybe just nature and that is what Whitman likes about these men.

From the impression I am getting from Whitman I would say he is a person that tries to convince people into his way of life. His way of life would be an all human loving life where he likes every other person because of the kindness of human kind. He would also be very involved in nature probably living in a space where he is away from the city noises and pollution. He likes nature and his ideal way of life is living with it while sharing and protecting it. According to Whitman: "I breathe the air, but leave plenty after me, And am not stuck up, and am in my place" (342). Whitman says that he likes nature and uses nature because it is necessary for living but, at the same time says that he doesn't want it all for himself. He is not of the twenty-first century where today there is a constant fight for natural resources. Today we hear that the next great wars will be for water and natural resources but what are we dong to help this stop. When Whitman says that he leaves a lot of air after him he is talking about how he doesn't want to have nature all for himself, he wants nature to spread around the world and people to enjoy nature as he does. In Whitman's time there might have been no fight for the resources but if we were to apply his quotation to today I would see it as the need for the resources and the fight to obtain them.

Leaves Of Grass Poems 1-10: View Of Life

There was once a time when I was young and thought that the world revolved around having fun, that I thought that poems were worthless. I thought that they were a loss of time and that even worse teachers forced us to write poems. I used to write them full of feeling with the things that I liked in my life trying to sound the most emotive as possible. After all those poems that I had to write in a forced way I started to get a certain understanding to what poetry is supposed to mean. Each time I gave the poems a bigger effort and started to realize that it is not just placing all your feeling in a paper because almost anyone can do that, it is about through your feelings making the reader understand a new way of viewing life. I think that that is what separates a true poet from a normal one and it is his ability to communicate his thoughts of the world through his feelings. When I read the poems of Walt Whitman in his book of poems called Leaves Of Grass I saw this expression of his views through his poems. According to Whitman: "You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books" (chapter2). When I read this I really liked the meaning he was trying to get trough. What I could get from this is that he wants people to stop looking at things from outside the real thing. He wants people to be related directly to the thing they are talking about not to be bystanders and look at what happens. I understood it more like a call for action, to stop dreaming so much and get into action to pursue that dream. I actually like this message because it is making the readers find out what kind of person Whitman was during his life time. From this part of his poem I could imagine him doing everything possible within his reach to pursue his dreams instead of dreaming he could have them and taking no action.

While I was reading I became interested in knowing who Walt Whitman was. I then went into Wikipedia and entered Walt Whitman to see more about his life and how it could relate to some of his poems. I saw that in the important events in his life his father died and in that same year he published the first edition of Leaves Of Grass. When I read his poems I also got the feeling that he talked a lot about the soul and death. This could have a big relation to his father's death because the loss of a loved one can really affect the view of life. In chapter five he mentions the soul when he says "I believe in you, my Soul—the other I am must not abase itself to you; And you must not be abased by the other," and the soul is the most essential part of existence. A body without a soul is just a body, but with the soul it is a human being. The soul is really the essence of the person and when he talks about the soul he talks about him as a friend and another person. He may be referring to the soul of his father and that person who was his very close friend. In the other quotation he mentions death. According to Whitman: "And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier" (chapter6). He sees death as a good thing. Death here is described as a thing that normally people do not know. I think the general idea of death for people is that it is bad but, when Whitman says that for his it is not that way he must be meaning that it is something good and luckier as he says. Now that I know more of his background I might be seeing the poems he wrote through different eyes because when such a traumatic event happens in the life of a person it is certain that that person's view of life will change.

A Simple Heart Ch 4, 5: The Shortest Death

Gustave Flaubert is the kind of writer that I would like to have as friend if was going to write a book. He uses different techniques to write that even though his theme of the story might become repetitive and without action he manages to keep you interested in it by the way he writes. He likes to get to the point rather quickly without any unnecessary writing. This help in some way get the reader interested because he know that instead of describing a flower as nature's most beautiful thing where birds stop and humans eyes rest, he will just say a flower. In a part of the story he did something that really got my attention. When he was talking about Felicite he started talking about a driver and what the driver saw. According to Flaubert: "Behind her, in a cloud of dust and impelled by the steep incline, a mail-coach drawn by galloping horses advanced like a whirlwind. When he saw a woman in the middle of the road" (Chapter 4). In this part he manages to confuse the reader and later in the next paragraph he makes everything clear by telling the reader that the woman in the road was Felicite. Another thing that Flaubert does that really impressed me was when he described very important events. In almost all the stories I have read until now the scenes where a fatal injury or a very important thing happens to a character there is a lot of description. There are whole stories that are based on important events like the death of a character. In Flaubert's A Simple Heart I think I have seen the shortest description of death and big losses. One clear example of this is when Flaubert describes Madame Aubain's death by saying "her tongue looked as if it were coated with smoke, and the leeches they applied did not relieve her oppression; and on the ninth evening she died, being just seventy-two years old (Chapter 4). How can the death of one of the main characters in this story be described so simply. Flaubert is describing more her death as if it was not important and making us feel that her life was not as important as it appeared to be. I think this is a new way of describing very important events in the story making it different. I personally do not like it and it wouldn't be my choice when describing something very important but it is a good technique to use if it goes along well with your story.

A Simple Soul Ch 1, 2, And 3: Williams And Flaubert

Writing is a process that involves how each person writes and reacts to different situations. This different way of writing and ideas about different topics make writing be different depending on the person who wrote it. Those differences that people have are eventually their style of writing. The style of any writer is basically how he likes to state his points and how he says things that can be said in many different ways. We have seen in class some short stories of William Carlos Williams and I have seen that he uses similar techniques to write his pieces. The main two things that characterize his writings are his use of the structure of the paragraphs to show something that is being said in the poem and his different uses of punctuation to show the speed and the emotions of his story. In Gustave Flaubert's A Simple Soul I saw things that can be similar or different to Williams' way of writing. Flaubert uses lists to describe the setting of the story and also to show what Felicite had to do. Williams also used list to show the settings but he also used lists to show confusion by describing in very much detail what the features of each setting were. Flaubert doesn't use different punctuations with the intention to show the reader the rhythm in which that paragraph has to be read. Williams in the other hand hardly writes a paragraph where the variation in punctuation is not used to show the rhythm and to show what is happening to the characters in the story. For example Williams did not use a period in a story that was about a chain of blind men falling into a bog in that way the reader reads the story as if he was quickly falling to the end of the story waiting for the point. I think Flaubert in a way does this to his writing by not changing the variation in sentences to show sometimes the boredom in the lives of Felicite and Madame Aubain after Victor, Virginia, and Paul are away from home. Another thing that really caught my attention of Flaubert was that in one chapter he talks about a woman for some part of the chapter without telling us who she is. According to Flaubert : "She would not believe him at first […] To Felicite his cowardice appeared a proof of his love for her, and her devotion to him grew stronger" (Chapter 2). His style keeps in this specific part the reader's attention because he really wants to know who is that person but is not told until later.

There was another thing that Flaubert did in his story that I noticed. He narrates most of the story in third person in except for a few pieces of dialogue. The few pieces of dialogue that are written are said by the different characters but in different ratios. Flaubert's style shows since the beginning that Madame Aubain has certain importance. She is the one that in the first three chapters most talks in dialogue. I see this as the way in which Flaubert shows us the importance and the prestige that each character had in the story. Madame Aubain says in one part "Now, be brave, be brave"
(chapter 3), and talks in dialogue other couple times. Felicite does not talk in dialogue for almost three chapters until in the end of chapter three she has a dialogue. Flaubert with the dialogue usage may have wanted to show the importance of the different characters throughout the story.

 

The Atoms Of Writing

Gary Lutz's lecture had one main target that was explain how words affect writing. I liked how he went from very specific to broad when going from the words to the sentence to the paragraph. The sentence is composed of words that by themselves do not mean anything. The words are the smallest part of writing that has a meaning, almost as if they were the atoms of writing. These words when placed together in a sentence by a writer can have the ability to be a good sentence or not. According to Lutz: "But too often our habitual and hasty breaking away from one sentence to another results in sentences that remain undeveloped parcels of literary real estate, sentences that do not feel fully inhabitated and settled in by language". When a word is not placed by the author in accordance to the other words then the sentence can lose its meaning. I really agreed with this part and I somehow saw this out of sentence sometimes showed in the actions of one friend. If we are all happy and having a good time he has to be angry and trying to make us all have a bad time. When we are all bored and tired he is the one that is full of energy trying to make us happy. In the sentence when the words do not fit together then they may change the meaning. As said by Lutz "And as the words reconstitute themselves and metamorphose, your sentence may begin to make a series of departures from what you may have intended to express", and it is true one word can change the meaning of the whole sentence. I really liked how this lecture managed to incorporate personal experiences of the author and at the same time link it to the topic he is going to discuss.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 6: Pynchon The Master Of The Labyrinth

The process of a story is in just one conversation where a person tells the other person what happened. The novel is meant to go slower in a more detailed manner while focusing on many other themes. The novel is also divided by chapters which make the reader have some sort of stops. This article is really what Oedipa's life has become. Before Oedipa's life was like a long novel where she did not have anything much to do. It was all monotonous and she almost had no communication with Mucho. Now her life had become a story. Her life was happening at incredible rates where she would drive around California searching for clues that lead to more information about WASTE. She had also met many people and had many strange events. One of these people that she met and helped her in some way to discover more about WASTE was the man from the bar called The Greek Way. At the end he was the only one Oedipa wanted to talk to. Oedipa was somehow wondering if all this clues and trying to solve the mystery was set up by Inverarity. The man from the bar said "It's too late" (pg.146), and when he said that I thought the same Oedipa thought. The question I would have asked then would be too late for what or for whom? He tells her that it was too late for him but did not explain anything more. Pynchon might have done this to leave a lot of room for interpretation to the reader. The reader now has to imagine what he meant. When I read this I thought that it was too late for her to retire of the case. She had gone too deep now in the knowing of the case that dropping now would be more difficult than not dropping. He also creates leaves the story with us really not knowing if all was a joke of Inverarity or it is true. In this way he creates two options but he never tells us which one is done.

A thing I noticed is that in some occasion Pynchon slips in his opinion about a certain subject in the novel. According to Pynchon: "The owner informed her that Zapf, the damn fool, has set fire to his own store for insurance" (pg.122). The first time I read this sentence I did notice that it says damn fool but I did not really care about it. Then when I saw that there was no one talking in this quotation I looked back to see who was talking. When I noticed it was the narrator that said that to the owner of the shop I noticed that Pynchon had some sort of hate for Zapf. We do not know who Zapf is but we know that Pynchon is not very fond of this character. The other thing I noticed that Pynchon included in this quotation was the materialistic thinking of people. How can one set on fire its shop just to get some money? I think that this person did not care how much spiritual value his shop full of books and his work life had. We are sometimes too much driven for power and money that we tend to forget the spiritual side. Pynchon might have included this quotation to show the greed of human kind and how people will do anything for money.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 5: Destiny’s Game

Today I got the news that one of my friends has his new driving license. I am really annoyed at everyone getting their license when they turn sixteen and feeling as if I am the only one that is already sixteen without this license. I have decided that I will take the course in the week of Thanksgiving. When I sometimes see people in the streets I am not sure of how prepared I am going o be to face the real traffic. I do know how to drive already and I am sure that it isn't a very big problem to drive myself around but I have seen some reckless driving in the streets that really leaves me astonished. When I see these kinds of drivers I start questioning the safety that people have around these excellent drivers that go in the wrong way to save themselves five minutes of traffic. I sometimes worry of the pedestrians that cross the street in the middle of the street where they are not supposed to cross. They are very irresponsible and sometimes cross as if there were no cars speeding by. The fact that young careless drivers have license really increases the percentages of accidents. In The Crying Of Lot 49 Oedipa is faced in a situation where she is almost killed thanks to the careless driving of a boy. According to Pynchon: "She drove more or less automatically until a swift boy in a Mustang, perhaps unable to contain the new sense of virility his auto gave him, nearly killed her" (pg.87). In this quotation I could see the word destiny written all over it. The boy nearly killed her but, he failed. That failure was done by destiny. The destiny of Oedipa is to execute Inverarity's will and to find out what this organization of W.A.S.T.E. is about. Since her destiny hadn't been fulfilled up to that moment then it was not meant for her to die. Pynchon might have meant with this quotation to show us how the task destiny has set us up to do is meant to be done. It doesn't matter how much you try to evade it and run from it you will end up doing what destiny has in mind for you.

WASTE is an underground organization of mail delivery not controlled in any sense by the government. When I first saw this problem I thought that the persons that invented this had to be very illegal and wanted to do something evil out of this invention. Then I said that mu conclusion was very basic and that I did not let the members of this WASTE mail explain their reasons. If was a person in a world where all the mail I sent was read and censored by the government I would also be very upset. All the privacy that is meant to be used when people write letters is lost. What will happen next is that people will start to put secret codes and messages to try to get their private and personal messages across to the recipient without the government knowing. If this were to happen then it would become really complicated to write letters. The main purpose of letters is to provide communication between people. If the codes start to flow in and the governmental censors then the communication will be lost. After seeing this scenario that I made up that was the most possible scenario of those people that made up WASTE I concluded that if I was among those people I would have also done an underground postal system. A woman that is saying good-bye to her son in the airport said "Write by WASTE, remember. The government will open it if you use the other" (pg.100). What she said is really the problem that happened in that time and it was that the government managed to view all the information that people communicated.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 4: Yoyodyne Inc.

I saw in the internet some days ago a big fight between two companies that were saying that one of their new product was really of the other company. The company that currently produces and sells to the public the new product is being accused by the other company that they stole the idea from them and are using it now as if it was theirs. I am sure this type of problem happens a lot between rival companies. It may be a strategy of the company to try to demoralize the other company by making the other company appear as if they were stealers in the eyes of the public. This can be true because in today's economy advertisement and public appearance of the companies affect a lot their incomes. Another scenario that can happen is that the accusation is actually true. If the accusation is true then it means that one company stole the ideas from the other. For me it would be really frustrating if you have been working in a product for a long time. You have dedicated a lot of your income to this product because it will be something new that the world has never seen before. Suddenly the day before you are going to announce the product you discover that another person has stolen your plans and shown that product as his. Yoyodyne Inc. is also a company that wants to increase their income. They do this in many ways as an ordinary company but they also violate patent and copyrights of the author. According to Pynchon "Koteks explained how every engineer, in signing the Yoyodyne contract, also signed away the patent rights to any inventions he might come up with" (pg.67). When I read this I remembered Jesus' saying of not doing to others what you don't want them to do to you. In this case Yoyodyne is doing the exact opposite of what this maxim says. Yoyodyne definitely doesn't want other companies or people stealing their ideas and inventions but, they do want to steal and take away the inventions that people make while they are working for them. It is also a way of perpetuating the inventor to the company. If you have invented something and you happen to be really fond of it but, its known discoverer is Yoyodyne and not you. If you happen to have this situation it would be more difficult for you to leave because you can't just part without your invention and there is no way of taking it away from the company's claws.

There was a part of the book that I found was really related to my life. There is a part where Fallopian is talking with Oedipa about Koteks and what he had said. In the explanation of Fallopian there is a quotation that says "What's it like, Oedipa, being all alone in a nightmare like that" (pg.70)? I really related to this quotation because there is also a nightmare that I have some times. I don't really know when it happens but I have had the same dream a couple of times. The nightmare I have is that I am in my house with my parents and a very strong tornado comes. There is a lot of barking from the dogs of my neighborhood and I do not why this is. I look outside the window and I see a very large tornado coming straight at me. When it hits I am blown away to a very different place. I look around to see familiar faces and I see no one I know. I am lost now and I do not even know where. I try to talk to someone in Spanish and after seeing no response I try in English. Having both languages failed I realized that I was alone in this new world and had to figure my own way out. After remembering this awful nightmare I really felt compassion for Koteks and what his life had become. After this I started to think of the many movies I have seen where there is only the last survivor in the world. I started to imagine myself in that situation and I definitely concluded that I would never like to be the last survivor in the earth and be all alone.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 3: The True Inverarity

The name Mucho Maas is definitely a name I would have never chosen for a character. Even though it is a strange name it does make some sense in some way. Mucho Maas is a very normal person without anything extraordinary. His name in Spanish means way more. After reading this I had quickly a question that needed to be answered: way more than what? In my opinion his name should be more Mucho Menos because he really doesn't have anything that goes above a normal person. According to Pynchon "It was an ordinary Muchoesque envelope, swiped from the station, ordinary airmail stamp" (pg.33). This letter showed the simplicity of Mucho and the fact that he did not go into lots of extra work into making a letter. We have already seen a letter sent to Oedipa before that was Inverarity's letter. Mucho's letter compared to him could have been said to be dull and lacking of meaning. In Inverarity's letter was his will. It is much more important a will than an ordinary letter but I think Pynchon did this such drastic importance of the letters to show the importance of the characters. He wanted to show to us how Mucho is more of a secondary character that until now has not done any major thing. In the other hand he wants to exalt Inverarity and show that without his will the story will be very different because the story is about Inverarity's will. There was also a part where the theme of a family member wanting to marry another person of its family. In the book there is a quotation that says "Evil Duke Angelo, […] by marrying off the only royal female available, his sister Francesca" (pg.50). Since I had started to read this book I thought that the name Oedipa had to do something with the real meaning of the book. Until now I had tried to see in what moments of this book the story of Oedipus could have been reflected but couldn't see any. I almost got to think that the name Oedipa was satire because she never talked about her family or had any way of showing that she had any relationship with a family member. Oedipus was now shown in the small fragment of the play when the two brothers are going to marry. This play may not be the most important thing in the book but, it was a way Oedipa had to find out more about Inverarity and the bones he bought.

Some weeks ago I was flipping through channels when I saw a documentary that related to this story. I saw a documentary in Discovery Channel called The Ten Commandments Of Mafia. There is a part in this book that talks a lot of what I learned from this documentary. Di Presso says "Who's Tony Jaguar. Very big in Cosa Nostra" (pg.43) and I immediately recognized that name. In the documentary they explained that Cosa Nostra was the way that mafia members called the mafia. In this documentary that I saw they explained that the mafia appeared in the US when mostly big Italian families immigrated. At the beginning the mafia gangs were only those that were family members, after they started incorporating anyone that seemed faithful and worthy to include. I think that Pynchon included the mafia in this book to show that maybe Inverarity's business were not all legal and that there were some that could have been done with the mafia. Also it could have been foreshadowing that he may be part of the mafia.

The Selfish Gene Chapter 13: The Lessons Of Life

"They are the same but different" was something that a friend once said to me. I said that how could that be possible since both are the same they have to be the same in all characteristics. She explained to me that this is not necessarily true because they me the same in many aspects but, there will always be something that will be different. I then imagined the case of twin brothers. Twin brothers are almost the same physically but, can be very different psychologically. In The Selfish Gene there is a part where I could see this concept of same but different reflected. According to Dawkins: "All genes look alike, just as all recording tapes look alike. The important differences between genes emerge only in their effects" (pg.235). Really what is outside is not as important as what is inside. If genes of muscle growth and hair growth were really similar and the body confused one with the other the effect that the gene produces is what matters. It doesn't matter what is done in the gene level if the effect that the body needs is achieved. This also reminds me of the maxim that said "Never judge a book by its cover". A book is very much like a gene. If you just see it from the outside it may seem the same stacks of paper folded and pasted together but, what is important in the book is the content and the lessons and stories it can tell us. Two weeks ago I went to a tennis tournament. I went with one friend and he had a match against this guy that was very small and did not seem very dangerous. My friend entered the court thinking that he was going to win easily. In the warm up the small kid did not hit very well and what we all judged seemed to be in accordance to his abilities. He won the flip of the coin and chose to serve. My friend was extremely confident of his win when the little guy surprised everyone in the crowd when he served an ace that was really going fast. The little guy ended up winning the match and that taught me a valuable lesson that is to "never judge the book by its cover".

There was a part of the book where I was really impressed of how the animal managed to trick or manipulate the other animal to help him. Normally when a person wants to trick another one or manipulate him, he will not want to show his true intentions. I say that the cuckoo is the perfect trick master because he can trick and manipulate almost anyone. According to Dawkins: "Its nervous system is being controlled, as irresistibly as if it were a helpless drug addict, or as if the cuckoo were a scientist plugging electrodes into his brain" (pg.249). What the cuckoo does is that he opens his beak and if another parent sees it he will go like if he was hypnotized and give the food to the cuckoo instead of his kids. If you think of it, it is really hard to avoid because it is a bright red mouth that attracts lots of attention. In the quotation Dawkins used drugs to refer to the cuckoo but, I think it is not the best object he could have used. In drugs there is a choice when a person offers you drugs to say strongly and clearly no. That is your easy way out of drugs but, in this case the other bird can't simply say no to the magic spell that the cuckoo lays on him. If you are flying through the sky and suddenly see an object that attracts your attention you will look at it if you do not know it is a cuckoo. Suddenly when you realize it you are giving the food of your kids to this cuckoo. Escaping of the spell that the cuckoo creates is much harder than saying no to drugs or anything that will create a dependency.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 2: Music of Oedipa’s Life

Rejection is a word that has always been in at least one chapter of a person's life. I would say that rejection will always happen because the person doesn't fit in. I once tried to go to band class. I was not rejected by the teacher because he couldn't simply kick me out of class but, I saw that all my class mates were playing their instruments very well compared to me. I tried to get better by practicing but, it simply did not work. Finally I discovered that music wasn't simply my thing. I always felt bad when I saw my grades of that class because I simply couldn't do music. In that time I was very fortunate that the grades of exploratories did not count on the GPA. Finally I dropped out. My mistake was there. If I have learned something in life is that life will always manage to put up harder challenges so you try them, not for you to drop out. This theme of rejection and being left aside was the main theme of the song that Miles sang. Miles's song said "That's what you tell me all the time, When you really try'n' to put me down" (pg.16). This song that Miles sang had a meaning because it ended up in him not giving up. Pynchon had to use this song for a certain reason and used it when Oedipa was entering the room. He may be trying to foreshadow that during Oedipa's life there will be many cases when someone will try to bring her down. The important thing is for her not to give up.

Music is also a thing that has great ambiguity. In general people like music because it reminds them of parties and having fun with friends, or special moments like graduation. But music that you do not like can also get you really sad or angry. It all depends on what kind of music you listen to and like. Therefore we can say that music has the power to change our mood. According to Pynchon: "From the other room came a slow, deep crescendo of naval bombardment, machine-gun, howitzer and small-arms fire" (pg.25). This can be seen as the dark side of music. The sounds in war can also be seen as music. For me it would be music where it will get me angry and sad. Maybe the generals and the commanders who like war might hear this music as nice. It all depends on the perspective of who listens to it. The music that was playing on the TV was that of war. Pynchon might have done this to show us how Oedipa's life was and was going to continue to be like. What I have seen until now is that she has many lovers and that she doesn't seem to be in a job. Also her husband is a DJ in a radio station and she doesn't seem to be too fond of him.

The Crying Of Lot 49 Chapter 1: Can Destiny Be Evaded?

Destiny is a thing that can't be evaded. It does not matter how much you try to escape from it, it will always get you. I have always asked myself if that is true. In some ways you can have a pre-determined job or task you have to do. You will never know what this task is but all your decisions and things you do in life spin around this job and eventually gets you to fulfill it. I have always thought of hypothetical situations when I have a proposal for a job or have an opportunity. This will be my supposed destiny but, then I say no to this opportunity and go to another place. In my pre-determined job and destiny is to have said no to that job or opportunity and go and pursue another job or destiny. I always end up saying that it doesn't matter what you do to try to change how things are meant to be because when you change them that change will lead you to how the things were meant to be. In The Crying Of Lot 49 there is a quotation that says "We want you" (pg.8). When I first read this I also imagined the same thing Oedipa and probably you imagined. The picture of Uncle Sam saying this is a very well known picture. Thomas Pynchon might have used such a known picture in this book to relate more to the readers. If instead of referring to this picture he had chosen to refer to a painting that was not as well known then, many of the readers wouldn't imagine themselves seeing the image of Uncle Sam. The quotation also makes an allusion to destiny and fate. When someone says we want you it is almost as thought that was your destiny. As I said destiny can't be evaded because it will always get you even if you go to another place. In the end I think Oedipa will end up helping Dr. Hilarius even though she doesn't want to help him. This can really be similar to what happened to Candide. Candide's destiny was to end up with Lady Cunégonde and many events happened to impede him from having her. In the end his destiny was to end up with her and it did not matter what happened they would end up together because that was what destiny had for them. I think in this case there will also be a lot of playing with the destiny of Oedipa and how will life end up having her do something that she did not wanted in first place.

The other day I was watching CSI and there was a very intelligent killer. In the crime scene the killer had placed objects that had nothing to do with the real happening of the scene. In this case the detectives had a lot of trouble figuring out the case because they followed one clue and ended up getting farther from the truth and then they traced another clue and had the same results. One thing that the detectives learned is that clues and evidence can be sometimes left on purpose to mislead them. There was a similar sense of confusion in this book. According to Pynchon: "That phone line could have pointed any direction, been any length. Its quite ambiguity" (pg.3). This phone call was very similar to the crime scene because it left more questions than answers. Maybe the intention of the caller was to left these questions so Oedipa wouldn't really know what had happened. After reading this I had the impression that the book would have many cases where the ambiguity of the events will make the story misleading. There was also a thing that was different from many books that was that this is full of confusion. After reading chapter one I would say that this book will be full of confusion and many chaotic events. It will be a different confusion from the one we saw in Slaughterhouse-five but, it will have the same effect that is to keep the reader more attentive. I think this book will have a confusion that is based more on the uncertainty of events and on many people that will appear in Oedipa's life.

The Selfish Gene Chapters 11 And 12: The Race To Become Better

Who does not want to become better? This is one of the basic questions of survival in the world. If you do not want to become better then you will stay in the state that you are now. All people and other species around you continue to become better and you will stay at the same level. If this happens then what would follow is that either you become extinct or end up in the bottom level. Everyone wants to become better or in other terms evolve because if not they would cease to exist. In the "selfish" world we live in there is no thoughts as to cease to want to become better. It is and arms race where everyone and every species strives to be the first one crossing the finish line and assuring the existence of their genes. According to Dawkins: "But occasionally Jenkins was privileged to witness the invention of a new song, which occurred by a mistake in the imitation of an old one" (pg.190). The change in something by mistake is a mutation. I had always thought that mutations would generally make people worse or in some ways nastier. I had always heard of mutations of people that appear without pinky or with six fingers, but I learned that it could also go the other way. Last week in science class I learned that mutation is the key for survival. Mutations will happen by an error in the copying of the DNA. The intention of the body is to avoid this, but it will sometimes happen. The mutations by mistake then lead to the survival of the gene. If the mutation that happened by accident in some way manages to increase the survival chance s of the species, then the species will adopt it. In some way mutations can help us get better that will help us in our final goal that is survive.

There was a concept that really caught my attention. This concept really caught my attention because in sixth grade I read a book that had a very similar concept. In the book 7 Habits Of Highly Effective Teens there were situations where you could accomplish a win-win concept. The win-win concept was when you had a dispute for something and you managed to settle with the other person something so both of you gained what you wanted. In the book The Selfish Gene there were also similar situations. According to Dawkins: "To the high command they conveyed aggression, but to the enemy they conveyed peace. The live-and-let-live system" (pg.228). This is a situation where the high officers wanted the soldiers to kill each other but they did not want to fight because they wanted to conserve their lives. This is case where each troop gains something because they live and let the other troop live, but they cheat the leaders. The leaders think they are fighting but they are really not fighting. I think this win- win situation can only work if it is between two parties that are negotiating to end each one with what they want from the other. Before reading these chapters I would have thought that good guys would always lose. Nice people that are always going to help other will be having an "altruistic" behavior and in the "selfish" world they wouldn't survive. After reading the quotation that said "It seems pretty convincing that nice guys do well in this game" (pg.212), I saw that there could be some exceptions. The exceptions described here is when the environment is suitable for them to grow. If you think about this it is true for very living being. If you are placed in the environment that is meant for you to live in then you have more chance s of surviving. If there managed to be humans born in Mars then we wouldn't survive because it is not our designated environment. The environment can shape the people and in the book MacBeth there is a good example. MacBeth first was not a very savage being that wanted to kill Duncan for his crown. The environment in which MacBeth was was an environment that wanted him to change. He was always with Lady MacBeth and she was "selfish" and wanted the crown for MacBeth. Finally MacBeth gets infected of that savageness and accepts to kill Duncan. This is one example where the environment is able to change and shape the person.

The Selfish Gene Chapter 10: Human Society

Sometimes in life there are situations where the good of the group is better for the individual. One clear example of this is a soccer team. In a soccer team there are eleven players on the team and each one counts. If one good player is in a team where everyone else is bad, then he will not have a lot of chance to shine. If he happens to be in a group where everyone is almost equal in level as him, then he will have more chances to be noticed. In this case the survival of the group is more important that the survival of the individual. This one player needs the team he just can't run past the other team's eleven players and score a goal and also be the goalie of one's team at the same time. The Selfish Gene says "If animals live together in groups their genes must get more benefit out of the association that they put in" (pg.166). Genes invest in the good of the pack or group if they know that they will get a better advantage by doing this. A lesson that I have learned through this book is that a gene will not do anything to help another gene if it is not winning in some way from that compromise or that it is helping in some way its brother genes to survive. I sometimes think that in the world we live in the human behavior can be very similar to this. You will see people that will only do things if those things are for the good of them, their family, or friends. The sharing and helping gene seems to be decreasing in the world because we see each time less people that are willing to help if they do not receive something in return. I think that there are still certain individuals among us that are not as "selfish" and are still "altruistic."

There is also altruistic behavior in animals. According to Dawkins: "The best policy is indeed to fly up into a tree, but to make sure everybody else does too" (pg.170). This seems like an altruistic behavior where everyone is willing to help the other to survive. This quotation really reminds me of the soldiers when they say to not leave anyone behind. In some sense the birds are like soldiers because they are part of a group as well as soldiers and would like the group as a unit to survive. Really it would be very nice if the entire world would operate like that, but no, it is not like that. In the world there is just competition for who gets first. I really hadn't thought that it was a way of selfishness to have kids. Kids are like the way you ensure your genes, but according to this article we find that it is now being said as selfish. This article talks about how the families that are bigger are not helping the environment in some ways. This article says that parents who have more than two kids are irresponsible and that are not helping the environment. Who doesn't like to be cared for and helped without having to do anything to pay that person back? I think that humans are like some types of animals in this sense that they want to take advantage of the people that have offered their help to them. According to Dawkins: "Cheats do better than indiscriminate altruists because they gain the benefits without paying the costs" (pg.184). I really wouldn't like a friend that behaved like a cheat. You normally help people without expecting something back from them, but in some way you do expect something back. You might help someone but you imagine that in the future when you need help he will help you. If you help a friend in some situation and when you are in the same situation he doesn't help you back, then he is not really your friend. One of the characteristics a person can have that I dislike the most is that they are traitors. When I read the part about the cheaters I immediately associated them with traitors. When the word traitors came up I linked it to a book. In Dante's Inferno we could see that in the last circle of hell, where the worst sinners stayed, was the circle where the traitors go. Since Dante puts the traitors as the last in hell then he might not disagree with me that the most detestable characteristic of a person is that he is a traitor.

The Selfish Gene Chapter 9: Which Sex Is Better In Terms Of Surviving?

The Selfish Gene Chapter 6: The Balance Of Life

There are many sacrifices that have to be done in order to ensure other things. For example it can be said that if you want to excel in a class you may have to sacrifice a bit of your sports practice and social time. I think of it as a balance. You have certain time to spend in your day to distribute it between the things you want to do. If you add a more weight to the academic side then you have to take some from social life or other activities. The point where you want to be is to achieve a balance between hobbies, school, and social life that is good for you. In the gene world there are things that are very similar. When you are a parent you also have a similar balance. If you use your parental investment to please your kids then you are taking time from you to help them survive. Sacrifices are the things that you stop doing to help and please others. These are sacrifices because the time you used to use doing things that you wanted now is used on helping others survive essentially doing altruistic actions. According to Dawkins: "This means that, if a woman had a child and a grandchild born on the same day, the grandchild could expect to live longer than the child" (pg.126). What I understand with this is that as the "survival machine" gets older then the probabilities of the children to grow decrease. In this situation we are also presented with the sacrifice and decision on which thing to spend time on. If the mother had chosen to have another baby then it would mean that she wouldn't be so attentive of her grandchild because she would be caring about her child. In this case the grandchild will be lacking a grandmother because she is concentrated on other things. Since as they grow older the chances that the child survives are less normally, what the grandmother will do is ensure the survival of her genes by focusing on her grandchild. In human life there are cases where the grandmother cares for them a lot. The parents are the ones that are in charge of teaching us and correcting us but our grandparents have another role. They serve more like the ones that take care of us and spoil us because they are not the ones that generally scold us.

There are many cases where the sacrifices do not exists even between brothers and sisters. I am talking specifically in the animal kingdom where the competition for resources is much fiercer than in humans. In humans we sometimes see cases of jealousy from the kids towards the parents when they have another baby. When a new baby comes it is sometimes not so well received by the previous brother. Since it is a baby it needs much more attention so the balance of parental attention is shifted towards the newborn. What will normally happen is that the older kid will try to get the attention of his parents by doing things. For example he might start to act in impolite ways to attract attention. In The Selfish Gene there is a quotation that says "But in the light of our selfish gene concept we must expect that individuals will cheat, will tell lies about how hungry they are" (pg.130). When I read this part I was impressed of how selfish will the genes get to ensure their survival. I simply can't imagine myself lying that I am not hungry when I am full. The rest of my family is hungry and I will be taking food from them if I lie, but that is what happens in the animal kingdom. There is certain limit of the abuse of lies. Since brothers share half of their genes with each other they will also want them to survive. If the animal sees that he is decreasing a lot the survival chances of his brother he will stop lying, but if not he will keep on lying. When parents choose to which kid they will give the food they have to balance the percentages out to see which one needs the food more to survive. Since there are many that can be lying then it is really hard for the parents to find out. Essentially animals sometimes will sacrifice themselves and their time for other and in other occasions they will not sacrifice anything. I think there are no emotions linked to these animal acts, just the selfish genes wanting to survive.

The Selfish Gene Chapter 5: The Ishmael Gene

As I read through chapter five I found an idea that related a lot to Ishmael. Ishmael is a book that talks about humans, culture, and nature. He showed to us how the completion of species was very tough, but that it was harder intra species. In The Selfish Gene this statement is also said when Dawkins says: "Blackbirds and blackbirds compete with each other for worms and for everything else" (pg.67). This was also one of Ishmael's teachings. The two books include this, and each book has its separate reason for including it. In Ishmael it was used to show how animals will kill for hunger and destroy with a reason and how we kill for fun. In The Selfish Gene it is used to show to us how genes control the animals in order for them to survive. When I read this is started to think that it makes sense to compete with the same species because they need everything that I need. With other races they might need worms but I need bread so we do not have to compete directly. In humans I am not sure if this is true. I personally relate better to persons that are similar to me in things they like and do than persons that are more different. I would say that the more similar persons are to me more we get along. I am not saying that all people feel the way I do, but I think generally people like other people with similar moods and actions. In another way this does relate to human beings. We are all in a fierce race for the natural resources. We need the natural resources to be able to live and they are gradually decreasing so in a very near future a fierce race for the resources between humans will start. There was another part in this chapter that reminded me of Ishmael. One of Ishmael's teachings was that leavers had strategies for attacking other tribes. Each tribe attacked the others sometimes but at other times had peace with them. This strategy was called the erratic retaliator. According to Dawkins: "A more complex strategy which Maynard Smith and Price introduced is called Retaliator" (pg.74). Dawkins presents us with more strategies. If I had to choose one strategy of all the ones he shows is Prober-retaliator. I liked this strategy because it is the one that most adopts to the situation. It is a safe strategy that doesn't risk much but if they attack me, I will attack back.

There are many animal strategies that are very similar to human strategies. The strategy of the hens and the monkeys are the most similar to humans. In The Selfish Gene there is a quotation that says: "General memory of past fights, are kept together in a close group for a time, a kind of dominance hierarchy is likely to develop" (pg.82). Monkeys and hens as well as humans are able to record past fights and matches and use them to determine future actions. If I fight someone and lose, then next time I will probably not fight him because I know I will probably lose. The monkeys and hens will do the same thing. It is actually the best strategy because it uses past events and memories to affect future acts. This is a thing that also happens in many sports. For example in a soccer match you have to play a team that has beaten your team the last three matches. It is important that you and the team do everything to prevent the opponent intimidate you. Regardless that you try it will affect because of past experiences and events that you have had. The same thing can apply to tennis. In tennis the mind is one of the most important factors so it is imperial to clear your mind of past matches. If you have to play a person that has beat you and you enter the court with losing mentality you will most likely lose. In strategies for surviving, it is good to record past events. There are cases where past events can affects you negatively or positive is you have the winning streak on your side.

Mini-fiction

1. It hit him in the face, he had no dog.
   
2. I stood up with him. We were two to twenty.
   
3. He ate his vegetables, then had strength.
   
4. He ran to her. Now she wasn't his.

5. He fell to the ground. He had won.

6. Their breath stopped, after, they moved to the sound, goal

The Selfish Gene Chapter 4: Gene Control Over Humanity

As I am reading through The Selfish Gene I am finding many things that are quite interesting. I had never before thought of a gene controlling in such a big way human beings. Before I had the idea that genes determined what we are and what we looked like and that was their function. I knew we got half from our father and the other half from our mother, but I did not know many of the things genes really do. What I have learned is that genes are like parasites inside us that help us survive but for their own interest. Another thing I have learned is that the way it works in the gene level there is nothing done without a purpose. If a gene wants to make you have larger arms it will do this not because it will help you reach more things, but because you might be able to punch from farther distance and increase your chances of surviving. According to Dawkins: "The main way in which brains actually contribute to the success of survival machines is by controlling and coordinating the contractions of muscles" (pg.49). What this means is that our brain is the one that controls our body and our brain is controlled by genes. Before reading this book I would have never thought that there were small genes through our body controlling my life. Now I imagine that as I am writing this blog there are genes that is controlling my thoughts and actions. Genes do not control you completely but they do affect you a lot. According to Dawkins: "Is under control of genes in only an indirect, but still very powerful, sense" (pg.60). We do not depend on every movement we make on a gene, but we do depend on the brain. The comparison that Dawkins makes to the computer being pre designed makes it very clear. The genes have done the brain according to their wants so in some way they are still controlling us.

There has always been the thought that things come to an end. In the gene pool it was not the exception. If things are constantly used without giving them time to regenerate then it is probable for them to extinguish. In The Selfish Gene there is a quotation that expresses that: "Organic food in the soup, which had been slowly built up under the energetic influence of centuries of sunlight, was all used up" (pg.46). This is a very easy way of life. It is like just going to the refrigerator and getting the food you want and the food magically regenerating. In real life this does not happen and food in the refrigerator will eventually run out. When that happens then you have to go out and work to be able to have more food in the fridge. Genes had to do something similar when the food in the gene pool was ending. The genes decided to create survival machines. If we could go to gene world then we can see that genes get their pay in a very different way as we get our pay. Genes get their pay when they accomplish their main mission that is to make their survival machine survive as long as it has to until it reproduces. After the machine reproduces then it means that this gene was already replicated and that it accomplished its goal. Another comparison to our life with this gene example is our natural resources. We are running out of our natural resources because we are using them too much and without giving them enough time for them to regenerate. In this moment we have natural resources that can be seen as an easy life, but I have started to think what would happen if we did not have them. Just imagine having no more water. How are we going to create new water at a sufficient rate to satisfy the population's thirst? I do not know if genes have already contemplated this problem because they are the one that build us up so it is a future problem for human beings and genes.

The Selfish Gene Chapter 3: The Immortal Machines

Everlasting life is a dream that apparently human culture has always had. Living forever is something that most humans will strive to have, but we have to accept that we will never be eternal. It is true that with new medications and new scientific developments we are reaching longer deaths. Eternal is an adjective that can be used to describe anything except human existence. It is our destiny in some sort to die. We can't evade death and live forever, but there are a species that are close to doing this. According to Dawkins: "Emphasizing the potential near-immortality of a gene" (pg.35). A gene is near immortal because it can go down through generations of human beings and will only be killed if the person dies before reproducing. If this happens the gene will eventually not die completely because it still exists in this person's family members and on other people. Dawkins wanted to make real emphasis in this statement because he throughout the book will be trying to prove through genes, which are almost immortal, that human beings are determined by genes. Genes have developed a way to be able to pass from generation to generation and in that way they will live eternally. Imagine yourself depending on someone to live. You will control this person, but how this person acts also affects your future. If this person happens to die before having kids you will have no one to depend on and die. If this person has a kid before dying then you will now depend on the person's son. You will go on this forever and survive many generations by doing that. A thing that is not immortal in life is your knowledge. This statement has two ways of looking at it. You will be immortal in the people who knew you or maybe if you wrote a book, poem or contributed to history. According to Dawkins: "No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means" (pg.23). This means that all that you have learned and known through life won't be able to be passed to your kids. When I read this passage I started to think what would happen if this would be true. Imagine that you now had the knowledge and wisdom of all your ancestors just inserted into your body. This would be very different to what we know already because we would be born knowing a lot so we would become a much more intelligent race. Instead of having books tell us what was done previously we would only have to recur to our knowledge and we will find it. I am not saying that we would stop learning, what I am saying is that we could then focus on other things that are much more important than learning what we already would know.

Another concept that I found very interesting in this chapter was the process of natural selection. Natural selection refers to the survival of the most fit to survive. If you think about this in our daily life we also see that sort of examples. For example if there is one spot vacant in a job and three people present to be chosen, then the company will most likely hire the most fit for this job. The survival of the fittest genes as described in this book is the act where the gene that has the most ability to use their protecting armors, in this case the human body, to survive will eventually live longer than the rest. It is very good how genes are selected because they choose the ones most able so the ones that are less able disappear. The effect of this is that eventually the gene pool will just keep becoming better. In the book they refer that sometimes gene selection is random. I thought that this may affect the chances of some surviving and other not, but Dawkins quickly showed me reality. According to Dawkins: "By definition luck, good and bad, strikes at random, and a gene that is consistently on the losing side is not unlucky; it is a bad gene" (pg.39). This is the theory that I found in this book that I can most associate to my life. You sometimes only say that a person is lucky but if he consistently gets this supposed luck then you figure out that it turns out to be skill. This sometimes happens to me during tennis matches. I hit a very good shot and the opponent gets to the ball and returns it. His ball then hits my line and is a very good winner shot. In my mind I think that it was a good shot but that he had some luck. If in the rest of the match he tries it again and doesn't work then it was luck but if he consistently does it then it is his skill and not luck.

The Selfish Gene Chapters 1 And 2: Human World Compared To Genetic World

The first think I like to do when I am assigned a new book to read is analyze the title. The title of this book is The Selfish Gene. A selfish something is one that wants all it can find for itself. A gene is what makes human beings so if you put them together it might mean the selfish human beings. As I started reading I saw that our genes are not very different from us. According to Dawkins: "Made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual (or the gene)" (pg.2). This reminded me for an obvious reason of Confucius and Epictetus. After reading this part of the book I realized that according to this book Epictetus is correct and Confucius is wrong. The very genes of humans determine that we are selfish race and we will prefer the good of the person over the good of the group. Epictetus said that you should strive to survive without worrying what happens to the ones you love and the genes apparently are proving that we humans are designed by our genes to do this. Confucius has the opposite idea and strongly approves of the good of the group rather than the good of the individual. If these three persons had to choose sides then the teams would be Epictetus with Dawkins against Confucius. How can this difference happen if according to this book all humans are machines directed by our genes? I think that the environment can greatly affect the genetics of a person. If Epictetus and Dawkins were exposed to human beings that were selfish and wanted all to themselves, but Confucius lived in an opposing environment, then the differences are very possible.

Writing events that have happened throughout history is a very important thing that is done. For example if we forget that an event like the rise of Nazism there may be a future rise of a different group but we wouldn't be able to predict it because we forgot what happened previously. If we have a written record of it if we see a political movement similar to it we might be able to stop it before it becomes bigger. In the gene world it is not so different. According to Dawkins: "It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself" (pg.15). This shows that in the world of the genes there was also a gene that was in charge of keeping records and copying the genes. This gene maybe appeared by accident, but in genetics sometimes the accidents that occur are the ones that are most needed to happen. There is always one thing that is more important than all the rest and in this phase of genes it was the replicator. The replicator was the bridge and a step from simple to a bit more complex genes. Accidents in genes are the most important step in evolution as said by Dawkins in the quotation: "Erratic copying in biological replicators can in a real sense give rise to improvement" (pg.16). In the world of the genes the mistakes are a big difference with what he have in human world. In genetics mistakes are used for development and trying new things. In genes the mistakes are the ones that provide the biggest steps in evolution. In real life we treat mistakes as if they were done by people who did not know what they were thinking when they did the mistake. If we see the good side of making mistakes we can also use it like genes. We can learn a lot from mistakes and therefore we won't do that same mistake again. Genes have the ability to use all things even if they are wastes from other genes or mistakes. The question that I asked myself then was why are we so different to them if they are the ones who operate us?

Altruism: unselfish
regard for or devotion to the welfare of others (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Altruist)

Mini-fiction Satires

1. He dressed as a purple dinosaur. He went to teach serious matters to kids.
   
2. A fairy came into real life and helped him in a real problem.
   
3. Dynamite is tied to her and Mickey runs in and saves her.
   
4. He was attacked. He has powers. He has a scar.
   
5. He kicked the ball. The ball entered in the exact corner of the goal.
   

Chapters 20-30: The Sins Of Human Kind

I enter my house really late in the night. Tomorrow I have school and have to do a blog about the book that I have just finished reading. I walk slowly to my computer as a person that is sentenced to death walk towards the guillotine. When I get to my computer I have a new temptation that is to go to Facebook and waste my time while I could be doing my work. Finally, Dr. Pangloss's teachings save me from committing this fraud and I decide to write my blog. In Candide being a philosopher is a very strange job. First, philosophers are supposed to be one of the most studied persons and dedicate a lot of time to study and understand the world. In Candide a philosopher can be practically anyone. According to Voltaire: "For he found he could not do without Martin, his philosopher" (pg.96). Martin was a person that Candide had found in a ship who wasn't very rich. In real life a philosopher has to go through tons of reading and learning to be called so and in the book Martin became Candide's philosopher. In this book we find that Candide encounters many philosophers like the old woman, Cacambo, Martin, and Pangloss. If had to place these characters in order of who knew more about the world and life I would say that Cacambo and the old lady knew better than the rest. I say this because throughout the story they tell their own story and seem to be the most experienced and the ones that had gone through most things. In some way experience can be more useful than studying. For example if a person studies a lot of marketing but hasn't really tried to do marketing he would probably do not as good as a person that has studied less than him but has had ten years of experience in the field. There is also a lot of criticism of philosophy and Pangloss's teachings. How can everything in life be there for a good reason if all what happens to Candide and his friends is bad. There never seems to be a reward at the end of the way. As I read through the story I believed that after some terrible events there must be something better happening but each time the situations got worse. Pangloss teaching was that everything was for the best, but how can something that just keeps getting worse be for the best. After reading this book I think that philosophies only apply to the thinking of you and can't be generalized in the people.

 

In this book there are a lot of evil forces that want to prevent Candide from reaching his love but always good triumphs over evil as Pangloss says. In real life this story is impossible because Candide survived many things. How can one be the only one alive with three others after an earthquake, or how can he survive the difficult trip to El Dorado. The battle of good versus evil was really reflected in the humans. We saw that when Candide traveled with Martin through Europe they saw all kinds of terrible human acts. I do not think that humans are as bad as Voltaire shows them in this book. Human beings have always been characterized as being very greedy and horrible creatures that want everything for them. If you want the worse description that human beings can ever have you should read this book and see how Voltaire despises human beings and society. There was a maxim that Martin said: "I am more ever convinced that man is evil" (pg.108). This showed that human beings in this book appear all to be against happiness and always wanting to destroy their equals. When I read this I stopped because I got thirsty. While I went to get something to drink I was thinking about this and realized that animals are not as dehumanized as we think. We associate barbarism and destroying things with acting like animals. After this I a question came up to my mind. Do animals kill or destroy things or others for pleasure? The answer for this is no and animals kill others for survival and not to have fun. Voltaire also has a target on priests and corruption. He is constantly criticizing the Catholic Church and how they are corrupt. As I was reaching the last part of the book I saw a quotation that said: "High estate is always dangerous" (pg.143). This also shows how Voltaire thinks of corruption. I think that he would agree if I said to him that power corrupted people because throughout his book he kept showing that the power that an individual had affected their way of behaving and being.

Candide Ch 18 And 19: El Dorado The Perfect World

Is giving up an option for you? When something hard appears in your way do you turn around? For me giving up is not the first option you should look at. Before doing that you can try many different things to be able to succeed in the area you have trouble. It may be a excruciating task you have to accomplish but nothing is impossible if you really set yourself to do it. Apparently there are many people that do not share this idea with me. There are people that prefer to stay mediocre all their life by not trying to accomplish his problems. In Candide there is a part where I see the feeling of wanting to be mediocre reflected. In the book there is an ignorant fellow they find that when they ask him a question he answers: "I am an ignorant fellow and quite content to be so" (pg.77). I think this case is very different from the case of us. The difference is that this man lives in a wonderful place where everything runs perfectly. He lives a very good life and is able to survive without an education. We do not live in a utopia so we can't rely on things happening as we would like them to happen. In our world we have to work and study to be able to accomplish things in life. In our life education is the most important thing in life because without it you won't be accepted into university or get a good job. In the New York Times I read an article called Leaner Times at Harvard: No Cookies and in this article they talk about education. This article shows that in the most prestigious universities of the United States the economical crisis is making things change. The main change that may affect the student's education is that they closed up a lot of cafeterias so the accessibility to fresh and warm breakfasts is lowering.

There are many characteristics of a utopia. Many of them have tried to be achieved by many different people throughout history but all proved to not work. If you really think about it, it is very hard to build a place where all people live in their dream world. With all the requirements for a perfect utopia I would say that the ones that are most important are that the people are all treated as equal and that there is enough money for everyone to be able to live comfortably. In the city of El Dorado we see that both of these characteristics are accomplished. We saw that even the one person that works as a farmer but doesn't have education is considered as equal as all the rest. When we talk about gold in El Dorado we think that ii is extremely abundant and our thoughts are proved when the King says: "But take all you want, and much good may it do you" (pg.83). I couldn't believe that a person was giving away gold like if it didn't have any worth. After I read this the thought that the values of things vary according to the person that has it. In this case there was so much gold in El Dorado that the King did not mind giving some away. It is also the same if you have a gift from someone very special that could be worth five dollars. If a person offers to buy it from you at twenty dollars you will probably not sell it because it has more value to you than the money. If another person happens to find this and he is offered ten dollars and he knows the worth in money he will probably sell it. When they have all the gold and it is lost Candide says to Cacambo: "There is nothing solid but virtue and the prospect of seeing Lady Cunègonde again" (pg.85). This also shows the emotional value that things can reach. If Candide was in that moment with Lady Cunègonde he would of probably be sad about the loss of the money, but at that moment there was a thing with much more value in his mind. I think Voltaire might have done this to show us the materialistic world we live in. In this world everything and everyone would do anything for a certain amount of money. Voltaire wants to criticize this by showing through Candide that money is not the most important thing in life. If had the chance to ask one question to Voltaire it would be which do you hate most the corruption of the Church or the corruption of society?

Candide Ch 16 And 17: Overcoming Obstacles

Today after I finished tennis practice I started to think about life. I do not normally do this but I was bored in the car. I came up with my final conclusion that is that life is to have fun and to be happy. It may sound very kid like, but what else can our purpose be in life? Many people may disagree with me because our purpose is more a matter of opinion. I would still say that everyone in life likes to have fun and be happy and they enjoy this. There is suddenly a moment in life where nothing seems to cheer you up. After you have had a very sad or traumatic event you maybe feel like if dying was the only way out. When reading Candide I saw that Candide said: "What is the use of prolonging my miserable existence, if I must drag out my days in remorse and despair at being banished from her presence" (pg.68)? I have seen many people go through very difficult times when some horrible thing happens to them. These people do change a lot after those things, but it doesn't mean they cease to have the will to live. As I said before life is meant for us to live it and be happy and I see these horrible events that happen to people sometimes as the obstacles that God puts to us. If we manage to climb these obstacles you will feel a sense of accomplishment and feel better about yourself. I personally have never met a person that hates life so much that he wants to end with it. I did see a funny video on YouTube that introduced to us a person that did hate life. Elmo hates his life so much that all he does is complaining (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7IxliAPjAk&feature=related). That is another way to take the obstacle that you are faced with. You can try to climb it or just stay below it and complain about how difficult it is.

Pangloss is a great philosopher that his main ideas are that there is a destiny that we have to follow and that there is nothing bad that comes without any good. This can also be related to the obstacle example. If you have a bad situation you can try to look the bright side of it or just keep focused on the negative and stop living your life as you want to live it. When Candide says: "If I had not been lucky enough to spit Lady Cunègonde's brother, I should infallibly have been eaten" (pg.72), I immediately recognize the fact that something bad brought something good. If Candide had just thought of that episode where he killed Cunègonde's brother and think that that was the worst thing in life, then he couldn't have noticed that that even saved his life. A perfect life is what Candide and everyone would like, but when things go the other way you have to be able to maintain optimism. There was a place in Candide where everything was perfect like a utopia. In page seventy-seven there is a quotation that says: "It is probably the country where all goes well; for there must obviously be some such place." This is the perfect world where everything goes well and nothing is wrong. Everyone has thought of creating a utopia where everything was perfect for each one of us. The problem is that the population of the world is not only one and a utopia has to please everyone. I think that a utopia will never be found or achieved by any kind of government because of the differences of the people. I think that believing in the utopia depends in you because if you look at this world as if it was perfect then it would be a utopia for you.

Candide Ch 14 and 15: Is Religion As Bad As Voltaire Shows It?

"You should never judge the book by its cover" is a very common maxim. The meaning of this is never to judge a person before you get to know his situation and life. Normally when you judge a servant you would say that he is there and he is dumb and can't do anything for himself. In Candide the exact opposite of this thought happened. According to Voltaire: "And had been successively chorister, verger, sailor, monk, commercial traveler, soldier, and footman" (pg.61). These are a lot of qualities for a slave. Sometimes the person at the bottom or less expected to be something ends up being the most intelligent and able person of all. Cacambo is like the multipurpose person in this story and he also serves as Pangloss to Candide. Since the death of Pangloss there have been two people that have replaced in some way Pangloss. First there was the old lady that when Candide and Cunègonde had no idea what to do the old lady proposed a solution. In this case Cacambo also became Pangloss when Candide needed help. After killing Cunègonde's brother Cocambo recommended him to disguise as the priest. As I am reading I find that Voltaire is stressing each time more Candide's problems to act by himself and make the crucial decisions. It is as if Candide was always the master of his new tutors, but without them he would be hopeless.

The church is a holy place where Catholics go to pray to God. God has always been sending us messages through the Pope, priests and other members of the church. What would happen if suddenly we realize that there are corrupt priests that bias God's teachings. If you ask me if I thought that God's teachings were biased I would certainly say no, because I strongly believe in God and his teachings. If you were to ask a different person like for example Voltaire your answer would be a definite yes. According to Voltaire: "The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing" (pg.62). Before in the Middle Ages there was the thought that priests were the ones who determined the afterlife of each person. There were people who had been bad all their life and would pay the priests and they would grant him heaven. Voltaire can be referring to this in some way by saying that the priests are way richer that everyone else. If religion is meant to be good and help everyone the why did they have so much territory and the rest of the people had nothing? Religion is supposed to help the poor but it is ironical how Voltaire shows to us that instead of them helping the poor that is what they are supposed to do they are not helping them. The target of over here is very clear that it is religion and how they claim to be helping human kind but they are corrupt and want power and money for themselves.

Cassock: a close-fitting ankle-length garment worn especially in Roman Catholic and Anglican churches by the clergy and by laypersons assisting in services (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cassock)

Candide Ch 12 And 13: Dependency On Exaggeration

Dependency is a word that means: something that is dependent on something else (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dependency). When someone says the word dependency I think two things. The first thing I would think is a dependency to substance like tobacco. The second thing would be a person or animal that can't do a thing without another person. In Candide there are many parts that show dependency on another thing. According to Candide: "Our sagacious Pangloss hanged: for otherwise he would have made some remarkable observations on the moral and physical evils" (Candide pg 58). I could see that Candide depended a lot on Pangloss. Similar quotations have appeared in previous chapters that mean that Candide needed Pangloss's advice to do things. Pangloss being the teacher of Candide probably intended like most teachers to guide their students but not do everything for them. In this case Candide did not learn anything from his teacher because he still needed him for everything. This type of dependency has been seen in real life also. One clear example of dependency is when people depend on their friends to do things. If someone invites a person to a party that person will most likely ask who is going and if any of his friends are invited. If the person responds that none of his friends are going then the most probable thing he will do is not go. In that sense he depends on the actions of his friends to do or not to do things. Another example that is more like Candide's is when a tennis player is playing a match. There are many times in a match where the player has no clue what to do next and he wants to call his coach and ask him for his piece of advice. In professional tennis if the coach gives him his piece of advice there will be penalty for the player because it is against the rules. This rule was probably made to prevent the player from becoming too dependent on his coach and starting to think more for himself. It is very important to learn from your teachers and not expect them to tell you exactly what to do, but expect yourself having to explore and discover for the answers.

There was a part where I thought immediately of the word exaggeration. According to the old lady: "If you find even one who has not often cursed his life and told himself that he is the most miserable man alive, you can throw me into the sea head first" (Candide pg 57). When I first came across this I said that it was pure exaggeration because it was impossible to find a ship full of people who thought their life was the worse. As I read in the next chapter that everyone indeed told them that their life was the worse then I understood that Voltaire was doing this to show the reader that people will always want to make themselves stand out even if it is for the bad. People also exaggerate a lot their events to make themselves look stronger or better. When I read this I tried the same experiment with my sister. I asked her what was her worst day in her life and made sure that she told me one day that I was present with her. As she told me the story I was also remembering what had happened and at the end I concluded that she had described the events and difficulties way much harder than what they were. I think it is the nature of human kind to want to exalt ourselves into looking better than what we really are. You can also see this example of showing that they are stronger than the rest when the old lady told her story. It is a strange thing to brag about but in a way it completes its purpose.

Candide Ch 8, 9, 10, and 11: The Poetic Opposite

Candide has many parts where they show the authority doing the wrong thing. In many cases it will show priests doing something that the religion prohibits them to do. It can also show a police arresting someone for the wrong reasons when he is supposed to be the authority and the justice. One of the many examples of this is: "Until the Inquisitor threatened him with an auto-da-fé. This forced the Jew's hand" (Candide pg 42). This showed how the corruption and power each person had was abused. If the Jew were to have more power than the Inquisitor, then the Inquisitor couldn't claim anything to the Jew. It did not matter who had gotten Cunègonde first, the only thing that mattered was if the one with more power than the other wanted her. It is very unfair for a person to want something and really strive to get to his goal and then someone takes it away from you. Voltaire wanted us to see how power was used to get what the person wanted. I do not think this is not as different to what we see sometimes today in our society. We will sometimes see police not fining cars with diplomatic license plates and also policemen that are bought by a person when they are going to fine them. It is unfair when both things happen because when a person has a diplomatic plate it was as if they were superior than all the rest and did not have to obey the law. The other case which is buying the authorities and it could be in more crucial cases like when someone is going to jail also shows superiority. It shows that rich people have more power than poor people because a poor person has to go to jail because he can't pay the authorities.

There is another example of people doing what they are not supposed to do. I found this part funny because it is the exact opposite of what he has to do. If there was a word to describe this I would say it would be poetic opposite. Imagine a reverend stealing something. According to Voltaire: "I strongly suspect that reverend friar who slept at the same inn with us yesterday at Badajoz" (Candide pg 47). One of the Ten Commandments is do not steal, and it is the thing he is doing. Members of the Catholic Church are supposed to live a life guided on the word of God. With the friar that we are presented with here doesn't follow one of the commandments so it is like not following the law of nature. Candide has a clear effect when doing this that is showing the reader the corrupt side of the Catholic Church. Voltaire might also have the intention of criticizing the church by showing that a member of it is committing a sin. There was also a part where the acts of the people were in disaccord to the religion. In page 53 of Candide: "Yet they will not miss one of the five daily prayers prescribed by Mahomet." When the old woman said this she had been describing the war that was going around Morocco. She then is talking that the civil war is followed and they still consider themselves religious beings. I can think of another event in history where religion is the motivation of war and in that event the differences in religions where what kept fueling the war. In the Crusades as in this event in Candide we can see that humans do not do what their religions are telling them to do that is make peace and stop killing.

Candide Ch 6 And 7: What Voltaire Tries To Make Us Understand

Have you ever seen someone get arrested for a very bad reason? Personally I haven't seen any one get arrested in person, but I have seen videos in the news where they arrest people. Normally, I would tend to think that it is for a good reason. If someone has not done something wrong then why can they be arrested? Something very similar happened in Candide. According to Candide: "Dr. Pangloss and his pupil, Candide, were arrested as well, one for speaking and the other for listening with an air of approval" (Candide pg.36). I have seen excuses for being arrested very lame like if you accidentally drop a paper, but for speaking and listening. At least there is a rule that prevents you from loitering. In the case of speaking and listening, these are more considered rights of human beings than rules to be followed. The people from Lisbon had to find sacrifices to be protected from the earthquakes and they used any excuse to find someone. In my past blog I researched a little bit of Voltaire and noticed that he wrote things for a special purpose. In this case Voltaire is addressing the corruption in the police and the lack of moral values of society. The corruption in the police is reflected when the police arrest someone who is innocent. The police will sometimes do this and it is most likely that they have been payed for someone to arrest that person. Voltaire would also be criticizing society when he shows that the moral values of the police are very low. It also shows that people would not do anything about doing justice and only wanted to save themselves.

There was one part where Candide is helped by an old lady. Knowing that Voltaire is a satirical writer, when I read that Candide followed this lady I thought that something bad was going to happen. In many stories that I have read the old people will be more kind to the people that are suffering. I have always seen them as if they were grandparents that were always there to help their loved ones. When I read and noticed that this lady was apparently helping Candide I was very impressed. According to Candide: "Candide was even more surprised at the old woman's kindness. He wanted to kiss her hand, but the old woman stopped him" (Candide pg.38). The other thing I noticed was that the old woman was very modest and humble. She did not seem to be the woman who went bragging that she is the most kind and helpful. Instead she helped Candide expecting nothing back from him because she knew he had no way of repaying her. I also thought that Voltaire was going to criticize the aspect that in civilization you find very few modest persons. Maybe in the case of the old lady Voltaire wanted us to look at her more like an example instead of try to not be like her. In other words Voltaire is criticizing society, but in another way. There was a maxim I heard that said: "Tough times do not last long, but tough people last forever," and I think this can be very closely related to Candide. Candide has suffered many things like the death of the Anabaptist and Pangloss and he is still holding on to life. Candide had survived many floggings and injustices. After all his sufferings he is worth to receive something positive. When Candide receives this there is a quotation that says: "Candide could scarcely believe that he was awake; his past life seemed like a nightmare and the present moment a happy dream" (Candide pg.39). This goes along very well with the maxim because Candide has endured many things and finally he is having a happy moment. Voltaire might have made this part to make us understand that sometimes hard times are not as hard as they seem and that if we are able to endure we will be rewarded.

Basque: a member of a people inhabiting the western Pyrenees on the Bay of Biscay. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basque)