The End of the Day: Act 2 Voyage: The Coast of Utopia

The second act of Voyage, is still filled with philosophies and conflicts within the family, but there is a slight change in the way that some of the characters discover things about their nature that they didn’t know. They are more passionate and not only are there changes in their love life but in the urge of some of them for revolution.

In the first pages of the second act, a new character called Natalie appears in the story. She is a very desperate girl that is searching for a man, and that tries to seduce Michael various times until she achieves it. This woman is only desperate but she has very low self esteem and when she is rejected she answers in the following way, “Don’t you think I’m pretty?”(76) When she says this, she argues that she has been rejected because she is ugly, making of herself a victim. She’s probably thought she was pretty but then with one rejection she thought the worst. This character is very similar to Sonya, in Uncle Vanya. They are both desperate in their own way, looking to fall in love and after a man. They also suffer a lot with their looks. While Sonya sees herself as simply ugly, Natalie thinks that she is being rejected because she is not pretty enough. The way both of these characters are structured shows a pattern in the way that apparently Russians see women. Both of those plays have a woman that is weak and desperate, especially for men. This may represent the image that some people had during those times about women and their roles in society, or maybe it is just an element used in literature about Russia. It is not very surprising to notice that women were seen as inferior and unable to perform important functions within their intellectual and academic world.

The other topic that appears many times in this act is revolution. Michael is very motivated to make part of a revolution with the help of Belinsky. His ideas are based on the different philosophies that he has been studying and under the influence of his friend. “He’s discovered revolution. Now he knows where he was going wrong.”(114) When Tatiana says the quote above, she is referring to Michael and to his final decision of what he wants to do with his life. After studying so many philosophers and changing his mind on who had the right ideology, he decided to stick to revolution. He had finally knew where he went wrong and was beginning to aim towards a clear goal. As I had said before, this is very contradicting because Michael wants revolution when he is a person that represents a tyrant due to the fact that his family owns so many serfs. The topic of revolution is very constant in these types of plays, especially if they are about Russia, because of the importance that the Russian Revolution had over the rest of the world.

Finally, the ending of the play has a last scene that impacts the reader. Alexander goes blind and he insists to go and “watch” the sunset. This is apparently a scandal, especially for his wife, but as they talk of Michael and how he rebelled and dropped the army, he begins to ask about the sunset. When they are done speaking he says, “I saw it go down.”(119) This may be a metaphor that he is using to express his feelings about what happened with Michael. When he mentions that he did see when it went down, he may be referring to Michael and how he was blind at first when he didn’t see as a father that his son didn’t want to do all those things that were expected of him, but that now he saw how it all fit into place. He realized that Michael was now where he wanted to be, although it was degrading for his family and its dignity. A sunset at the end showed how his hopes faded away and how he did notice it when it happened.

Imperfect Attempts of an Utopia: Voyage Act 1

Voyage, the first play of the Coast of Utopia, is very different from all of the plays that I have read. Its characters are in a way, undeveloped, as they are truly simple and even idiotic. Their conversations are completely egocentric as they do not have any interests beside their own.

The first act of Voyage, introduces to the reader a traditional Russian family that struggles constantly to be perfect, but that in reality is nowhere near perfection. The sisters are all in conflict for they do not think for themselves, and therefore act under the influence of other members of the family, such as their brother Michael. This character is always jealous his sister’s suitors and he ends up destroying all of their relationships at the beginning of the play. Michael is a young man that likes to defy authority, and in a way this is very contradicting because he thinks as a liberal but he lives under the conditions of his father, which includes being part of the army. In his various attempts to try to find his own ideology, Michael changes hi mind about the philosophers he admires very often. This shows his lack of self confidence, because he can’t even choose what to think. “I got led astray by Schelling. He tried to make the Self just another part of the world- But now Fichte shows that the world doesn’t exist except where I meet it-there is nothing but Self. Now I know where I was going wrong.” (33) The quote above shows how Michael changes his mind so drastically about the philosophers he decides to read. Every time he talks about them, he mentions the “Self” which indicates that he is really trying to understand himself and to find his true vocation in life, because he can’t really do it on his own. If you think about it, this is very pathetic. A person that doesn’t have ideas of his own and has to use ideas from others is definitely very sad.

When Michael talks about revolution and change, it is also very hard to believe him because the ideal that he fights for are not exactly his own. This is obvious when he supports the cause of his friend that fights for the servant population and their rights. When doing this, he is clearly contradicting himself. His father owns hundreds of servants and Michael also controls them as he is the son and therefore future heir. Belinsky is Michael’s friend and he has a lot of liberal ideas, His influence over Michael is great because he manages to convince him to supporting his causes. “He wrote a play against serfdom, that’s why.”(43) Belinsky writes articles and plays about serfdom and stats that there is no literature in their country. The fact that Michael supports his friend in this ideologies is very hypocritical of his part because by trying to create this Utopia out of his life with philosophy and the rights of slaves, he is contradicting himself because he still own hundreds of “souls” and he does use them for his personal benefits.

This play addresses many topics that are very common with other works related to Russia, such as Uncle Vanya. The constant attempts for revolution and change in the Russian society show in this literary works are actually an effort to reach a Utopia. In Uncle Vanya, the family wants to have an equal distribution of land and to receive what they deserve for their hard work. In Voyage, the characters want to fight for the rights of the serfs and for what corresponds for them to have. It is possible to think that this theme of Utopia is common in a country such as Russia because in a way, its various political, economical and social movements have led to revolutions and therefore to systems such as communism, which is a way of saying Utopia, as it tries to have a perfect or equalitarian society.

Vanya and Sonya: A paradox

The final act of Uncle Vanya brings the whole conflict to an end. Uncle Vanya is seen by his family as crazy and they all decide to leave the house after the shooting. The fact that Vanya shot the professor twice and he also missed him both times is truly embarrassing and pathetic. He seats down and cries completely humiliated. When the fourth act begins, he is still very ashamed.

As soon as the act begins, Uncle Vanya realizes that he has been treated as a mentally unstable person by his family. “Strange. I attempt to commit a murder, and they don’t arrest me, they don’t bring me to trial, which means that they consider me insane.” (216) When he sees it, he begins to argue with them and tries to confront the. His sarcasm is always present and he tries to up set them so that they let him to what he wishes. This is definitely an attempt of manipulation, and at the end he accomplishes his goal, because they all leave the house. When he has to confront them directly, he says the following, “Well, I’m insane, I’m not responsible, I have a right to say silly things.”(216) Although he feels embarrassed over what happened with the shooting, Uncle Vanya is not mature enough to deal with his problems and so he tells his family that because he is insane, he can’t be held responsible for anything, and therefore they have to take care of any troubles he may cause. Uncle Vanya is not even capable standing up for his ideals which position him once again to be the victim of the story. He never does anything right, not even murder. When he is treated as insane he reacts as one, although he knows he is perfectly normal. In every single opportunity, Uncle Vanya finds the time to victimize himself in front of everyone.

The attitude that Vanya takes before life is a very tragic one. He finds the negative aspects to everything and he doesn’t want to look for anything that may bring him some happiness. Sonya on the other hand, tries to find some positive aspects to her life, although she is also a pessimist and a victim, just as Vanya. Both of these characters are very similar, but at the end of the play, Sonya demonstrates to be more hopeful. It seems as of she were the person that complement Vanya, not only in personality but in state of mind. They are so similar, but at the same time very different. They are like a paradox, but less contradictory. When the final act is about to end, Sonya tells Uncle Vanya the following, “What’s to be done, we must go on living... You have had no joy in your life, but wait Uncle Vanya, wait... We shall rest...We shall rest! (227) We shall rest? What does that really mean? Is she referring to death? Is she talking about forgetting all their problems and leaving their frustrations behind them?

At the end, it is hard to understand both of this characters, but in a way it is not as difficult to see that what they wanted to have was actually nothing. They didn’t want anything, because in the beginning, having all those things and being responsible for them was what ruined their lives. Even though they did victimize their selves too much and try to appear as if everything in their life was empty, they knew that when they were left alone, there would be no temptations and no reasons at all for them to be desperate as they once were.

Desperate Boredom: Uncle Vanya

In Act three, of Uncle Vanya, the characters begin to express their feelings and some of them loose control. The romances within the house flourish and as the situation develops, the tension increases between all of them. At the end of the act, there is a huge crisis in the house and most of the characters have a meltdown.

At the beginning of the act, Sonya confesses to Elena that she is deeply in love with the doctor. Elena promises that she will ask the doctor if he feels the same way. When they plan all of this, Elena tells her that it is better to find out the truth than to be uncertain, and Sonya answers in the following way, “No, uncertainty is better... at least there is hope...” (199) In this quote, it is obvious how desperate this young women is to have be loved back and to be married. She lacks a lot of self confidence and she feels that she couldn’t be uglier. She knows she is ugly, but when people such as Elena tell her that she has nice hair, she responds in the following way, “When a women is not beautiful they always say: ‘You have beautiful hair, you have beautiful eyes..’.” This shows how she has no appreciation for herself, and therefore she is so desperate in finding someone that will be “merciful” enough to be with her. In a way, Sonya is very similar to Uncle Vanya as she feels worthless and depressed. She hates her life because she finds no love, and for her, that is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. Her state of depending on other to be happy is the same as the one of Uncle Vanya, who depends on the rest of his family, and especially the doctor and the decision he takes on the future of the country house. As I continued to read, I realized that each one of the characters in this play depend on another person. Elena depends completely on the professor, the Doctor on Elena and off course the professor, the nurse on the professor and on the family, Maria on Vanya, and so on. At the end of the day, it seems that they all depend on Vanya because he is the one that decides what to do with the house, not only because he is Sonya’s uncle and therefore the elder that has to decide, but because he is so crazy at the end of the scene, that everyone is scared of what he might do, and therefore they will follow his instructions.

After reading further into the play, I realized that throughout the text there are various comments that refer to the boredom and lack of interest that the members of the family feel towards the life in the countryside. The professor is one of them, and he says the following on the third act, “One can reconcile oneself to ill health, but what I can not endure is this regimen of country life. I feel as if I had fallen off the earth and landed on another planet.”(205) The direct and indirect comments that most of the characters of the play make against their rural life’s seems to be constant. They hate it, but at the same time they can’t escape it. What is the author trying to teach us about the countryside? Is Chekhov trying to show us that people from rural areas depend on their land but at the same time are attached to it? The doctor said he wanted to live in the city because he was tired of his present life, but that he couldn’t do it because the expenses would not be covered by the production of their land. When he proposed to sell it, Vanya refused to accept as he was attached to it due to all of the years of hard work he had invested in those crops and that house. One of the messages that this play attempts to convey is that the rural life is very hard and it slaves the people that were born inside it. Almost all of the members of Uncle Vanya’s household are desperate living in the country and they want to go away to the city. This migration of these people is a perfect example of the discontent with that type of life, and it is evident that the urbanizations in many nations have been constructed and organized due to this kind of movements.

Age, Drinks, and Fiction: Uncle Vanya

Uncle Vanya’s second act is full of interesting quotes that guide the reader towards understanding the conflicts that take place throughout the play. The characters are opening up to each other, revealing their secrets and inner thoughts, showing the readers that they behave the way they do because of what has happened to them in their life’s.

The first issue that is discussed in the second act is the troubles that old age brings on a person. The first one to talk about this is the professor who is in a lot of pain and is bored with life. He feels as if everybody feels discussed by his presence, and he even states that he himself feels the same way towards his present state of decadence. “Even my voice is repulsive. Well, let us suppose that I am repulsive, that I am an egotist, a despot-haven’t I the right to be selfish in my old age?”(179) In this quote he begins to tell the people that surround him that he is tired and that because he is so old, he can do whatever he pleases. His attitude demonstrates being old is a very delicate condition and the elders should be respected and allowed to do everything they like. This ideology reflects the desperation of the people when they reach an old age and don’t want to do anything else that to die soon. They are very depressed and want everyone to focus on them. The professor is already old and tiered, but Vanya is still young and what he is experimenting is a typical mid-life crisis that makes him feel as if he were as old as the professor although he is really not. Vanya is very negative and complains all day long about things that are not even worth complaining about. He hates the professor because he sees him as the person that he will become in the future. Uncle Vanya used to admire the professor, but now he sees him as a failure and he doesn’t want to resemble him at all. The most contradicting aspect of Vanya’s attitude is that he is very similar to the professor, as he complains a lot and is disappointed of life.

Another activity that is very common within the characters of this play is drinking. Most of the people that live in that house, be it men or women are driven to alcohol when they feel stressed or tiered. In this act, the ones that get drunk are the men, and more specifically, Uncle Vanya and the doctor. The scene were they get drunk is full of depressing comments that show their negative attitudes. When they drink, they feel as if they were living the life’s they would of wanted to have. “Elena: So you’ve been drinking today? What is that for?...Vanya: At least it seems like life...Don’t prevent me, Hélène!”(183) Uncle Vanya lives his fantasies when he is drunk, and probably one of them is to be happy. When he is drunk he confuses the momentary joy for the ultimate happiness he so desires to have. When Sonya confronts Uncle Vanya about his excessive drinking he answers in the following way, “Age has nothing to do with it. When one has no real life, one lives on illusions. It’s better than nothing.” As we can see in this quote, Vanya likes to drink because he lives the life that he wants to have. This quote may also relate to fiction, not only in literature, but in life. As Vanya said, sometimes it is better to pretend to have a good life, than to face reality. Apparently alcohol helps the characters of the play to overcome their fears, only if it is during a short period of time. In a way, fiction has the same effects on the readers, as it distracts them from their reality, and for a moment, involves them in a fictional story, with invented characters and fantastical plots. When you read a work of fiction you try to understand the nature of the people that are inside the book, and how you as an individual could be similar to them, and therefore have an exciting life as these characters. Maybe, in a way Vanya wants to make part of a fictional novel, where he doesn’t feel as old and useless as he does in his present life.

Contradicting Uncle: Uncle Vanya

The first act of Uncle Vanya is a perfect demonstration of what Russia’s rural society was during that period in history. The characters of this play are very well defined, and each one completely different from the rest.

The first image that is presented to the reader is that of the countryside and the family having tea in the garden. The “social pyramid” of the house is shown at the beginning when they introduce characters such as the old nurse, the doctor, the professor and his young wife, Sonia their daughter, Maria who is the professor’s former mother in law, and Vanya his son, and therefore Sonia’s Uncle. This pyramid is based more on the influence that the members of the household have on others, than on the power or money they may have. Although it is not logical, Uncle Vanya, who is supposed to be somewhat important, is actually the victim. He is never taken into account, and when he is, he second doubts himself, throwing away the opportunities that the family gives him to stand up for himself. When he speaks of society and its problems, he speaks as if he wasn’t part of it, trying to avoid by all means any social or political responsibility. He is constantly criticizing and his comments are very pessimistic. “...twenty-five years lecturing and writing about what intelligent people already know, and stupid people aren’t interested in- which means twenty-five years of milling the wind.”(168) In these lines, Vanya attacks the professor’s accomplishments and talks about how his lessons were completely worthless. These comments are full of envy and hate, which shows that Vanya actually wants to be like the rest of the people that surround him, but that instead he tries to make them feel useless, so that he appears to be stronger. I believe that what the author meant to teach us when creating Uncle Vanya, was that part of our human nature involves having an Uncle Vanya inside us. At the end of the day we are all pessimists, envious of others and judges of society. Chekhov shows us that humans are not positive and that characters such as Candide and Felicity don’t really convey the nature of humanity.

Further on in the first act, Vanya makes the following statement, “Oh, yes! An enlightened personality who never enlightened anybody.”(171) This paradox is actually a making a criticism on Vanya himself. His mother tells him that he used to be an “enlightened personality” and he responds with that sarcastic paradox. It is really sad how this man hates life so much that he even despites his own accomplishments. He doesn’t grant others or himself any merits.

Another character that was very interesting and to some point completely different from Vanya was the doctor. In a short monologue he talks about the barbarian behavior of people and how those acts of selfishness have destroyed nature. “When I hear the rustling of young trees which I have planted with my own hands, I realize that the climate is somewhat in my power, and that if, a thousand years from now, mankind is happy, I shall be responsible for that too, in a small way.” (174) The social and environmental responsibility that the doctor has is definitely impressive for that period of time. Today there is more conscience about those topics because we humans are living the effects that this is bringing to the planet. Chekhov, as an author was really ahead of his time and he did have a futuristic vision when creating a character such as the doctor. It is weird to think that Russians would have those ideologies, as they saw that the destruction of some natural resources would be beneficial for the overall development and growth of their Empire, which involved the construction of railroads and great cities. The main idea of this part of the play is to show how Russians think and how they act accordingly to their thoughts, therefore reveling a little of Uncle Vanya’s essence.

Destiny's Fate: Last Reaction to Macbeth

After I finished reading Macbeth, I realized that it had been a while ago since I last read it because I had forgotten how it ended. The Weird Sisters warn Macbeth about Macduff and about the different events that will take place before his death. Macbeth is very arrogant and he is convinced that none of those things will happen to him.

Shakespeare was very clever when writing the resolution for Macbeth. He uses the weird sisters once again, reminding the reader that these characters also appeared at the beginning of the play and therefore are truly important. The role of the witches represents the superstition of those times as well as destiny. They know everything as if Macbeth’s life were written somewhere. All of their predictions came true, which meant that destiny can’t be changed and that even though people may try to prevent it, at the end, it will happen anyway.

The warnings that the Weird Sisters gave to Macbeth were essential to the final twist of this play. The fact that the woods come to Macbeth is very unreal, but as the army cuts the trees off and carries them towards Macbeth, there is a certain symbolism that represents fate and destiny. The fact that the woods come to Macbeth shows that those things that were supposed to happen will always occur, even if it means that they will take place in different ways. According to this play, fate is meant to happen, but it may do so in various ways, not precisely how it was supposed to occur, but at the end the result will be the same. Macbeth would die if the woods came to him and if a man not born of a woman attempted to murder him. These events did take place and this man did exist, not as precise, but valid. “Tell thee Macduff was from his mother’s womb ultimely ripped.”(Act 5 scene 8 line 19)

The death of Lady Macbeth was one of the scenes that shocked me the most. Her confession of killing Duncan and the regret that she feels is very creepy. The battle that she has against her conscience is very intriguing as begins to hallucinate and have a paranoid behavior. “Out damn spot, out I say!”(Act 5 scene 1 line37) In this line, Lady Macbeth struggles to wash an imaginary spot of her hand. The inner battle that she is having withy herself is what finally kills her. Shakespeare is stating that guilt can destroy a person’s conscience and therefore, their soul. Lady Macbeth is suffering because she can’t live in peace with herself, and the only solution is to die.

Finally, I concluded the Macbeth was an excellent play because it managed to transmit a message as well as to include many elements that at the end all connected to each other in a very innovative way. The characters in this play were also very well defined and their development throughout the story showed perfect examples of human nature. The behavior of us humans is very Machiavellian and the author managed to demonstrate it in this work of literature. Macbeth and his wife believed that “the end justifies the means,” and unfortunately for them, it didn’t last long. They both died and didn’t have the chance to enjoy all the wealth and status they had gained.

Corrections Logs Macbeth

assasinations: This is wrong word choice and it doesn't fit well into the sentence.
correction: perform the murders

belief: This is the wrong word to use. The correct one is believe. This word means to accept and recognize that something is true.
correction: he wanted to believe/ I personally don't believe Macbeth.

weird sisters: This is a proper name, so it should be capitalized.
correction: Weird Sisters

So who will kill Macbeth?: The sentence begun with So, and this is incorrect.
correction: Who will kill Macbeth?

Felicity the Unhappy: A Simple Heart

A Simple Heart is a short story full fictional elements, although it is supposed to reflect the reality of society. The main character, Felicity, is pictured as a victim of life and of the circumstances. She represents a humble woman who has no power whatsoever, not only in society, but in her personal life. She suffers continuously throughout the story, always getting severely affected by the tragedies of others. Not only is her presence in society completely invisible, but she also manages to show herself as an ignorant person that will never succeed in anything.

The dependence that Felicity shows towards other people is too exaggerated. It seems that she is totally hopeless and can’t do anything on her own. She depends on everyone and she can’t bear anything. “She missed not having her hair to comb, her boots to lace, to tuck her in her bed—and not seeing continually her pretty face, not having to hold her hand when they went out together. Not having enough work to do, she tried to make lace. Her fingers were too clumsy and broke the threads. She was good for nothing, could not sleep, to use her own expression was ‘a wreck’.”(Flaubert)

Felicity is very insecure, and full of fears. She is attached to people that most of the time doesn’t even show any interest towards her.

This dependability on other people extends to a more exaggerated point when we are introduced to Felicity’s affection towards a Parrot. She is so connected to this animal that she continues to adore it once it’s dead, and even confuses it with religious figures, such as the Holy Spirit. These are the kind of fictional elements that make the story very incredible, but at the same time realistic because they reflect an imperfect society, with unbalanced people, instead of aiming for a utopia. “It was the first time in their lives, Madame Aubain not being of an expansive nature. Felicity was grateful for it, as for a kindness, and henceforth cherished her with an animal devotion and a religious veneration.”(Flaubert)

At the end of the story we see the desperation shown by Felicity when she replaces religion for an animal. She becomes totally devoted to the corpse, which is very disturbing. She admires and idolatrizes this figure constantly, which may represent a criticism made by the author against the church and the business they have established throughout images and religious figures. “All creatures functioned in ghostly silence. One noise alone now reached her ears, the voice of the parrot.”(Flaubert) The fact that Felicity confused her parrot to the Holly Spirit can have a lot of interpretations. The one I gave it was based on Flaubert stating that the church and its dogmas, as well as its figures, are all made up. The members of the Clergy are all liars, and all they do is talk, as well as the parrot. “In her final moments, she thinks she sees the heavens open, and hovering above her head — like the Holy Spirit in a religious painting — a giant parrot.”(Flaubert) This quote reminds me of the movie Psycho. In this film, Norman, a total psychopath with a doubled personality, has a collection of dead birds that he keeps in his office to admire. His affection towards the dead birds is very awkward and as you see his interaction with them, especially when he looks at them, you can see that the man has an obscure mind. When Felicity has a similar behavior towards the Parrot, you also think of her as a mentally unbalanced person that probably lacked of affection from others, and now tries to fulfill it through her animal. Norman could be analyzed in a similar way, as he was never close with her mom and he killed her when he felt betrayed by her.

In A Simple Heart, Flaubert recreates the France of his time by using characters such as Felicity. She is a typical woman from the countryside that works as a servant. Her ignorance on some subjects, such as religion, makes it more credible that she is a humble person. In this story, the author tries to portray reality exactly as it is, without exaggerating it in any way. He shows how Felicity’s life is sometimes very simple and boring. When reading this story, it is natural to think that it really happened and that Flaubert was narrating it, due to his realistic style.

Breathing Through Tears: Seize the Day: chapters 6-7

The last two chapters of Seize the Day, show how Wilhelm has truly reached his day of reckoning, as he finally discovers that he has been wrong and he asks for forgiveness and for a second chance. He is tricked by Tamkin, but he manages to accept it learning a valuable lesson. At the end of this novel, Wilhelm realizes that to be able to save himself from drowning in his misery, he has to let go. To be able to let go he has to have that moment of reflexion where his tears will be the ones that will cure him.

Throughout the novel, Wilhelm is afraid to let go and he avoids crying in front of others, cry in front of these people... No! No! And yet his unshed tears rose and rose and he looked liked a man about to drown.”(100) He tried very hard not to cry, which made it even worst. His emotions begun to accumulate and he felt as if he couldn’t breathe for much longer, until he finally feels that he is drowning. This resumes what I have been talking about previously because it shows that although he appeared to be strong, he was very weak and couldn’t handle it.

After he realized that Tamkin is gone, he goes back to his father and asks for forgiveness as he recognizes that was wrong and that he can’t take it much longer. His father refuses to help him and begins to feel once again as if he can’t breathe, “My chest is all up, I feel chocked. I just simply can’t catch my breath.” (105) His attitude towards his father changes dramatically and he wants to be with him just to feel that somebody cares about him, but he receives no support from Dr. Adler. He begins to choke and drown to death, but inside his soul. This is the symbolism that is found within this novel. Maybe the air that he is not receiving is the moments and the days that have gone by and that he hasn’t breathed into, or seized in other words. When he looses his investments in the stock market he feels as if he has lost everything, but later on he realizes that he is just as Tamkin has said people were, materialistic and dependant on the mechanical aspects of life.

As Wilhelm goes out into the street, he begins to observe the people that are around him, and he tries to understand their lives, something that he never did before. He opens up to the world and is ready to see beyond his enclosed perspective by observing others, “... in every face the refinement of one particular motive or essence- I labor, I spend, I strive, I design, I love, I cling, I uphold, I give away, I envy, I long, I scorn, I die, I hide, I want. (111) In this part of the novel, Wilhelm becomes more of a person as he tries to understand the world. At the beginning of the chapter he has doubts and hates himself for being stupid, and towards the end he allows his soul to be free within the crowd.

Finally, Wilhelm ends his day by discovering who he really is an accepting himself with his flaws and endless defeats. He saves himself from drowning by crying and expulsing all those tears that wouldn’t let him breathe for so long, “Wilhelm began to cry. He cried at first softly and from sentiment, but soon from deeper feeling...the source of all his tears had suddenly sprung open within him.”(113) He ends alone, but relieved from all the stress and constant worries that his past and his future tormented hi with, living that moment, seizing the day that had taught him so much of the world, humanity and himself just by being an observer and a pupil.

Animal Instinct: Seize the Day: chapters 4-5

In chapters four through five, Seize the Day begins to establish a more philosophical and reflective tone. Wilhelm meets with Tamkin in the Hotel and they carry on with their investments in the stock market. While all of this is taking place, Tamkin manages to lecture Wilhelm about life and he teaches him his “seize the day” ideology.

In the first part of chapter four, I found that the use of animals as a way to refer to people was more common, than I thought it was in previous chapters. I had already observed how Wilhelm used animal names to express his feelings towards a person and even himself, but it became more evident in this segment of the text, “Ass! Idiot! Wild boar! Dumb mule! Slave! Lousy, wallowing hippopotamus! Wilhelm called himself as his bending legs carried him from the dinning room (52) The use of this device may have several interpretations. One of them may be that the author wants to show that we humans are still wild animals that have an animalistic instinct as part of their nature and therefore will never adapt fully to the material and mechanical world. The mechanical world is also mentioned in the poem that Tamkin shows to Wilhelm, which he mentions is a criticism towards humanity and an explanation of why mechanism is the responsible for destruction in the world. Further on in the chapter, Tamkin himself uses the animal names to refer to an specific state of a human being as well as he establishes another element that relates to the setting of the story and its importance. “If you only knew one percent of what goes on in the city of New York! You see, I understand what it is when the lonely person begins to feel like an animal. When the night comes and he feels like howling from his window like a wolf.”(63) The first part of this segment makes reference to New York, the setting of the novel. The fact that Wilhelm doesn’t know anything about the people of the city, shows how he is completed alienated from society, and is a total stranger in that town. He is constantly thinking about the country side and how he wants to go back. Within the same context, Tamkin talks about a man that is so lonely that he acts like a wolf, howling for someone else to respond. He is probably talking about Wilhelm because he doesn’t belong in the city and he feels lonely due to his isolation from the rest of the people whom inhabit it. The use of the wolf as a personification of Wilhelm is very clever as it portrays a lot of his lonesome personality.

Tamkin introduces his philosophy to Wilhelm to make him understand that his constant worrying about his future, and the torments of his past are not worth thinking about. “Bringing the people into the here and now. The real universe. That’s the present ‘- moment. The past is no god to us. The future is full of anxiety. Only the present is real- the here and now. Seize the day.”(62) This ideology is everywhere, no matter where you are you will know people that think this way, including myself. I remember watching the movie, The Dead Poet’s Society where the new teacher of a very prestigious school, attempted to teach his students to seize the day, Carpe Diem. They began to life their life’s to the fullest and tried to confront their fears. This is precisely what Tamkin is inducing Wilhelm to do, as he sees that his life completely empty and shallow. Some time after he mentions this, another quote appears in the text which is even more specific, “Grasp the hour, the moment, the instant.”(86) This citation reminded me of the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse-five. They were always talking about how life is about enjoying each moment and living up to it. Although Wilhelm does not really understand this ideology very much, it is causing certain curiosity as he questions its essence and purpose.

The element of water begins to appear constantly, and it shows its relation to the feeling that Wilhelm had of being drowned and not being able to breathe, in the previous chapters. Water had been mentioned several times, especially by Dr. Adler who emphasized on it being the cure for all the illnesses. This time water appears as the condemnation of Wilhelm, which will lead him to eventually drown, “The waters of the earth are going to roll over me.”(73)

Wilhelm the Lonely: Seize the Day: Chapters 1-3

The novel, Seize the Day by Saul Bellow, begins by introducing Wilhelm, a guy in his forties who is tiered of life and pictures himself as a complete failure. He has no hope at all, his family is against him and he is in his way to bankruptcy. The tone that this character uses is very dark and egocentric, as he reveals himself completely to the reader. It is probably one the few books that I have read that makes such an introspective of one person that profoundly.

In the first three chapter of this book, the main characters questions himself a lot and attempts to answer this question, always resulting in the worst possible answer. The following are some examples of the questions that Wilhelm makes, “He had put forth plenty of effort, but that was not the same as working hard, was it? (4) ... “And while the losses were small they weren’t gains, were they? (5) In these examples we can see how he manages to feel so stupid and useless all the time, without the help of anyone else. In the first quote he degrades his achievements because he doubts that he did put hard work into them. He doesn’t give any credit to himself. In the second citation, he shows how negative he is, not believing that a loss is actually a gain, as many people say. He has no hope that things will get better, so he assumes his defeats as losses instead of considering them as new opportunities to grow as a person. This tone is very dark and fearful and full of questions which give the impression that the he is unsure about what he is saying. The voice is also very personal and the omniscient narrator gets inside Wilhelm’s head most of the time, reveling the essence of his thoughts. These elements show how this man is so isolated and hidden away from society and from the rest of the world. He always feels like a stranger when surrounded by people and he can’t open up completely to someone, not even his father, because he feels misunderstood. The fact that Wilhem feels that he’s running out of breath, shows the reader that he is in a way drowning in his own sadness and is not able to come out to breathe. “Dumb and incompetent, he struggled for breath...”(46)

Wilhelm, has other problems that are very common for people that are going through a mid-life crisis and that relates a lot to the Crying of Lot 49. This issue is connected to drug abuse, especially of pills. As we saw in Pynchon’s novel, many characters are induced into the world of drugs, and they are not only the young hippies, but also the older characters like Dr. Hilarious and Mucho Mass. They begin to consume because they feel that they don’t have anything else to do and they are alone in the world. Wilhelm feels the same way too, and he begins to take different types of pills to see if he feels better when taking them. In a way, this is being paranoid, which also relates to the Crying of Lot 49. “Meanwhile I suggest you cut down on drugs- ‘You exaggerate that, Dad. I don’t really, I give my self a little boost against-’ He almost pronounced the word misery but he kept his resolution not to complain.” (42) In that segment it is evident that he takes those medicines trying to achieve some happiness or stability, but doesn’t really achieve it. He takes them to fight his misery, but he is actually increasing it. This is another reason for him feeling like he is drowning and he can’t escape it, not even with drugs.

Finally, as I continue to read the novel, I realize that the author has established a very interesting element to the time scheme. The story is taking place during one single day, which relates directly to the title of the novel. It will be intriguing to see what will happen next, because it has to be very extraordinary for Wilhelm to realize that he has to seize that particular day. This approach is very clever as well, because it shows the reader that most of the time people don’t realize that they do many things during one day, and that most of the times we waste out time. He wants the readers to reflect about the changes they can make on their lives by using their time wisely during one day, and how they can appreciate life more by doing so.

Second Reading of Friendly Fire

After reading Friendly Fire for a second time, I realized that I had been wrong about the generalizations I made and the pro-war characteristics I had found. In my second reading, I observed new elements in the story, such as the specific target it had, which I didn’t notice in my previous reading.

This time, I decided to make an emphasis on the title, trying to relate it to the story in different ways. A Friendly Fire is when in war, there is an attack from part of the allies, being either accidental or intentional. When the military refers to a Friendly Fire, they use the term as a euphemism or double speak, trying to make their offenses into more agreeable terms, that will not sound as insulting and cruel as they really are. This can also be seen as an oxymoron, because this term contradicts itself in many ways, starting with its own name. In the story, Friendly Fire, the title may be applied in various parts of the text. The first one is found within a military context, “But when there was that fuss about the friendly-fire incident with the Danish soldiers, she fixated on the idea that Anthony had been involved in it, even though Roy insisted that he’d been nowhere near where it had happened.(Hadley) In this part of the story we encounter the thoughts that one of the characters has about her son in war. She hears about a Friendly Fire that occurs near to her son’s camp, and she is afraid that something has happened to him. For her, the term Friendly Fire, is the complete the opposite of its literal meaning, because it may be the cause of her son’s death. She sees that it is a doublespeak that the military is trying to impose on her, so she doesn’t feel that they have harmed the member of her family that is in war.

Further on in the story, I realized that the Friendly Fire that was being addressed earlier was not the only one that actually existed within the story. This time, it was not the military euphemism which was taking place, but the oxymoron that was so evident between the emotions of the characters, and what they pretended to be before everybody else in their life. These two women are hard working and positive within their jobs, always trying to appear that they are happy and satisfied with what they have in front of others. This is shown throughout the story in various ways, one of them being the flirtatious attitude of one of them towards the men for whom they are cleaning their toilets, which already makes it very contradicting. “It was better when the men were in. There was always the opportunity for a bit of a joke. He probably liked the sight of my backside better than my face, she thought when she got up to refill her bucket and caught sight of herself in the mirror above one of the sinks, a square of polished tin screwed onto the wall.”(Hadley) This woman tries to look confident before this strange man, approaching him though jokes and posses, but when he leaves, the reflection that she makes about her life and her current state, which is cleaning toilets, brings the apparent doublespeak that she was trying to make with herself and with the man to the floor, making her feel terrible once again. She realized that she can’t fool herself, and probably she can’t fool others, she is just a maid, just like a Friendly Fire isn’t as friendly as it sounds.

A Fictional Reality : Friendly Fire

The story, Friendly Fire is a piece of fiction that describes the life of two hard working women in New York. Although it is a made up story with fictional characters and situations, it portrays the reality of many Americans.

Pam and Shelley are cleaning ladies that are coworkers and go out one night to clean a warehouse. They are separated the whole time they are doing their job, but in a way they are connected. As each one of them is working, their minds are concentrated more on their personal problems than on the job they are elaborating. These women are full of troubles and on top of that they are responsible for sustaining their homes. The tone of this story reminds me of the movie, Maid in Manhattan. This story takes place in a hotel in New York, and the characters are the cleaning ladies, which are all independent women that have to take care of their families. This seems to occur a lot, not only in the United States, but everywhere else in the world. The author is sort of victimizing women in this story, showing them as the beings who are suffering the most. It is probable that this piece has as a target the sexism in lower classes, but maybe it just wants to show the reality of these people.

As I read through the story, I saw that there are certain topics that are recurrent not only in the newspapers but in US literature as well. A perfect example of this is the war in Irak, and the soldiers that are the always pictured as the victims of the situation. The problem with this, is that in the US, they have the choice of choosing if they want to join the army or not. The approach of the author in this story is based on the pressure that the families and society have over these young people, basically because of the economic advantages that are store for them. In Friendly Fire, there is a lot of pressure from part of the father towards the son to join the military,” “They’ll soon have him sorted out,” she said, but actually she’d been so angry that she couldn’t forgive him—or anyone else, either. She’d blamed Roy for reading war books and leaving them lying round the house. Or it was Anthony’s girlfriend’s fault: Leanne only wanted the money for those two kids who weren’t Anthony’s. She didn’t care what he had to do to get it. ..He’s going to make a proper career for himself,” Roy had said. “You ought to be proud of him, working so hard to pass his qualifications.”(Hadley)

Another topic that is very recurrent is teen age pregnancy. Lately there has been a lot of propaganda against this situation, due to the fact that it has increased so much during the last years. In this story the daughter of one of the main characters has a baby at seventeen and this creates a lot of tension in the mother-daughter relationship. Movies like Juno and Knocked up, show how important teen age pregnancy has become, and they are similar to this story because they address the same topic to give the message to the readers. “You’re such an ungrateful cow, Kerry had said cheerfully. “Just wait and see.” Roy hadn’t seemed to mind the sight of his seventeen-year-old daughter with her pregnant belly swollen out like a football. Like a bomb, Kerry put it...She was so clever at school. I wanted her to do something better,” Shelley had said. “Not just what the rest of them around here do—shelling out more kids.”(Hadley)

Overall, I concluded that this fictional story was really an attempt to create a crude image of reality by hiding a very general situation with names and places that do not exist.

Martin=Voltaire? Candide: chapters 21-30

In the last chapters of Candide, many characters that had vanished from the story, reappeared. These people didn’t only bring changes into the plot of the novel, but they led Candide to make more philosophical inferences about life. The characters that are constantly with Candide throughout the novel begin to change their minds about their personal philosophical views as they encounter terrible circunstances.

As I read these chapters, the character that caught my attention most of the time was Martin. He was always going against the ideas of Candide, especially those that were influence of Pangloss. He was considered a “pessimist” by Candide, but he was actually a realist due to the fact that he was correct on most of the things he predicted would happen. Martin has a lot of interesting quotes in which he makes certain analogies that makes it easier for Candide to understand. “ ‘Do you think’, said Candide, ‘that men have always massacred each other, as they do today, that they have always been false, cozening, faithless, ungrateful, thieving, weak, inconstant, mean spirited, envious, greedy, drunker, miserly, ambitious, bloody, slanderous, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical, and stupid? –‘Do you think’, said Martin, ‘that hawks have always been accustomed to eat pigeons when they came in their way?’ ‘Doubtless,’ said Candide. ‘Well then," replied Martin, "if hawks have always had the same nature, why should you pretend that mankind change theirs?’ ‘Oh,’ said Candide, ‘there is a great deal of difference; for free will...’ (96) In that passage, it is clear that Martin has a broader view of humanity than Candide, and he is definitely more experienced than him. Candide is very biased by all of the theories given to him by Pangloss, and he always tries to excuse people from their wrongdoings based on those ideas. Martin has thoughts that reflect Voltaire’s perspective on the world, and on men. He shows to be completely against the positivism that Pangloss tries to impose. “ ‘I hope, ’said Martin, ‘that one day she will make you happy, but I very much doubt it.’ ‘What a pessimist you are!’ exclaimed Candide. ‘That is because I know what life is,’ said Martin.”

In another citation, Candide accepts that Martin is right about the fact that some of the disasters that have occurred to them are simply tragedies, and not for the best, as Candide is convinced. “How right you are, my dear Martin! There is nothing here but illusion and one calamity after another.”(112) As the novel gets closer to its end, Martin gains more credibility and trust, not only from Candide, but from the rest of the characters. Martin seems to be the most knowledgeable of the people that are near to Candide and he’s probably the strongest amongst them.

At the end of the novel, all of the characters change their minds about life and the idea of happiness. The only person that remains the same and keeps his ideology is Martin. He never lets anybody else convince him otherwise, as Candide does all time with Pangloss. “As for Martin he was firmly persuaded that a man is badly off wherever he is, so he suffered in patience.”(139) In the citation, above we can see how Martin stands firm with his beliefs. He learns to live knowing that he will always see reality instead of the less possible positive outcome of a situation. When I analyzed this, I realized that what Martin doesn’t have is faith, in general. By not having faith of any kind and hating Jesuits as much as Candide does, Martin is actually a person that is against the Church and what it represents. As we already know, Candide is a satirical piece by Voltaire which attacks the Church, the state and the ignorance of the lower classes. This novel is also a criticism against the ‘positivism’ philosophies that were being proposed by Leibnitz, and that Pangloss is such a great fan of. “I would not be proper for me to recant, especially as Leibnitz can not be wrong.”(136) After thinking about it, I deduced that Martin is probably Voltaire’s voice within the novel. He is representing the author as an insider and he shares all of the ideas that Voltaire himself proposed in his lifetime. Many authors tend to include themselves within their novels, and this could be the case.

Candide's absurdity and Europe's setbacks: Candide 16-20

Chapters 16-20 of Candide have less social targets, than the chapters before, but it still has a lot of attacks made towards certain institutions. Voltaire introduces new characters and cultures, to form a comparison between the different types of societies and their ideologies.

The character of Candide is a perfect example of the absurd within satire. He justifies his most impulsive actions, by using the most absurd reasoning. Candide has a very local view of the world, meaning that he is not aware that there is an entire universe out there that he hasn’t explored. This is clearly addressed when he kills a couple of monkeys, afraid that they were going to seriously hurt two girls. “...he fired and killed the two monkeys. ‘I have delivered those two poor creatures from great danger. If I have sinned in killing an Inquisitor and a Jesuit, I have made amole amends in saving the lives of these two girls.”(69) The absurdity of killing two monkeys because they could hurt some girls is just too ridiculous. Candide not only takes it seriously, but he also thinks that he is a hero because he does that. His actions are very impulsive and he doesn’t relate to the rest of the people in the world.

The next quote I found has a lot of prejudicial thoughts made by Candide, who supposes that the Orellions would mistreat him when he arrived to their country. In a way, they did want to kill him at first when they thought that he was a Jesuit, but when they found that he had killed one, they were truly kind with Candide, “When all is said and done, there is a sterling goodness in unsophisticated nature; for instead of eating me, these people behaved more politely as soon as they found out I was not a Jesuit.”(72) This quote shows two things. The first one is that Candide thinks the worst about the natives, and in a way they also think the worst about the Jesuits, for their reign over these kinds of populations had always been very cruel. He continues to think that they are complete savages, and the satirical element that Voltaire uses to express this thought is the one of them becoming polite when they knew that Candide was not a Jesuit. The author is making fun of the natives and of their ignorance, because during those times, the native tribes were looked down at all the times because of their cultural differences with the Europeans.

When Candide arrives to Peru, the tone of the novel changes, and the target is not the ignorance of the natives in America or their hate towards the Jesuits. The target in this new chapter is the European society and the foundations of its economy. As soon as they see that there is gold everywhere in that country they begin to recollect it like beggars. No body in Peru was used to that sort of behavior for some sand and rocks, and so they had reactions such as this one, “Gentlemen it is obvious that you are strangers here, and we are not used to foreigners. So please excuse our laughter at your offering of paying us with stones off the road.”(77) The fact that the Indigenous are laughing at the Europeans is a satirical element placed there by the author to criticize the mercantilism that had overtaken Europe’s economy for so long. Voltaire obviously wanted to see changes in the economy, so he mentioned this to state it clearly to the public.

Finally, I encountered this quote, “I have no right to detain strangers against their will; that would be a tyranny which neither our customs nor laws could justify. All men are free.”(83) After analyzing this segment of the text, I realized that Voltaire is trying to show that the Peruvian natives are much wiser than the Europeans, and that the real savages are those who live in the old continent. They are savages because they do not respect human rights as they should and they will do whatever it takes to gain more power, even if it means to destroy the rest of the people. Voltaire was stating that Europe needed to develop some natural rights and laws so that the tyranny of the monarchs and enforce them. This would end the tyrannies of the monarchs, and the pole would be able to live in peace. These are principles that would be used during the French Revolution.

Aristocracy and Religious Oligarchy: Candide 10-15

In chapters ten through fifteen Voltaire targets the Catholic Church and its power in society, as well as he points out the resentment that the people have towards the high social classes.

On one of these chapters, there is a satiric element used by the author to criticize how society, especially the lower classes were very ignorant and enjoyed the misery of others. We can see this in the following quote, “It is wonderful how quickly these gentlemen can strip people; but what surprised me more was that they put their fingers into a place where we women admit nothing but a syringe-tube. This seemed to be an unusual custom...”(51) After reading this, anybody would deduce that the acts committed were in a form raping women. The women their selves are completely ignorant of what was being done to them and this female character uses words such as “wonderful” to describe the situation. This is obviously a satiric element used by Voltaire.

Some pages later, the author makes a direct attack to the Catholic Church. “The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing: That’s what I call a masterpiece of reason and justice.”(62) This is very sarcastic and offensive to the Church which had all the power and money of the people. The priests manipulated everyone and they demanded many things from the people. By using words such as “masterpiece and justice” when referring to the abuse of the religious leaders with the civilians is definitely the sarcastic element used by Voltaire. I can relate this directly to the ideologies that Voltaire proposed during his time, especially the one that said that the Church and the State should be separated and that there should be freedom and tolerance of religion.

Later on, another attack is made, but this time against the people’s behavior during this times and how they blamed it on the higher social classes. This was mainly due to their resentment towards those upper classes that had all the power and that abused of the rest of the people. This could be related as well to the French Revolution or at least the beginning of this important movement, where the people of France had to revolt against the aristocracy to be able to gain some rights. There is a perfect example of the impulsive behavior of the people before the revolution, as their anger accumulated against the most wealthy and powerful such as the members of the church, “I have killed my old master, my friend and my brother- in -law. I am the best tempered man there ever was, yet I have already killed three men, and two of them were priests!”(67) The example that related even better to the French Revolution is the following quote, “My master Pangloss used to tell me that men are equal...”(67) Here Voltaire addresses the equality of men through Candide and in a way it is an incentive for the people to meditate about their rights as human beings and as citizens of a nations. Voltaire was definitely one of founding fathers of the revolution and he was the person that most desired to have a society where the religions were separate from the government and there was no involuntary actions from part of the people to join the Church. The respect for human rights and civil liberties were the main objectives that Voltaire had, and Candide is the written proof of that. This novel is a legacy, not only because of its political and philosophical content, but because of the satire it uses to achieve a literary style that was of significant reflections and profundity.

Satirical Cruelty: Candide 4-9

Chapters four through nine have a lot of philosophical comments that at the beginning may sound confusing, but later on you realize are actually satirical elements put there by Voltaire.

In these chapters I could see how society was mocked when the author shows how tragic events were not given much importance by the characters. This could be seen in the scenes that followed the shipwrecks, storms and earthquakes, where the characters showed to be more concerned about other personal affairs, than by such tragedies. In a way, Voltaire is being satirical when he does that because he is saying that human beings, are very superficial and selfish, always concerned for their personal benefit, and not for the wellbeing of others, not even in the most terrible circumstances like the ones above. Another example beside the natural disasters is the personal tragedies of others, “During treatment Pangloss lost only one eye and an ear.”(31) This quote shows how Voltaire makes the characters so uninterested and uncompassionate about somebody else who has lost and eye and an ear by making it slightly bad. Loosing only one eye is something that will handicap a person forever, I say it because when my Dad lost one, it was very hard on him and it was very difficult to recover. The satirical element here is society itself and how humanity is so cruel and self centered.

I also found another example of this in the following citation, “private misfortunes contribute to the general good, so that the more private misfortunes there are, the more we find that all is well.”(31) When I read this segment I found it very true, because most of the time “somebody’s lose is our gain”, but putting it like that is just too perverse and evil, although it portrays the essence of society and how it functions. This could be linked to Macbeth as he and his wife benefit directly from the misfortune of others, especially on their death. When this occurs, these characters gain more social status and therefore more power. They begin to kill the people so that they can achieve the maximum position faster and more efficiently.

Later on after the earthquakes and the series of natural disasters, there is a specific comment that is mentioned that can be very shocking to the reader, “For it is impossible for things not to be where they are, because everything is for the best.”(35) What the character that said this meant, was that all of those terrible events were meant to happen for the best. This is too much of a positive attitude to be taken towards such tragedies. It is true that sometimes a loss or a bad thing will make you grow as a person and will open your mind, but most of the times tragic events may scar people eternally.

On the next page, I found this segment which caught my attention, “The authorities of that country could find no surer means of avoiding total ruin than by giving the people a magnificent auto-da-fé. (36) This auto-da-fé was the scarifying of people that were really innocent but were charged with the most absurd offenses under the superstition that the natural disasters would stop that way. The most ridiculous thing of all is that after they did this, another earthquake occurred and they did it again. By saying that it was a “magnificent auto-da-fé” Voltaire is being very sarcastic and is criticizing society for being so superstitious and ignorant.

Finally, in chapter IX, Voltaire targets the Inquisition and attacks it in a very harsh way through Candide’s behavior, “a jealous man in love doesn’t know what he is doing, especially if he has been whipped by the Inquisition.”(46) Here, he is blaming the impulsive behavior of Candide on the Inquisition and what it did on him. This is a very clear attack and Voltaire is not afraid to blame the Church for the troubles of the main character.

Vocabulary:

disembowelled: to cut or slash open the abdomen of, as by bayoneting, so as to expose or remove the viscera.

A role model of world citizen: Candide 1-3

After reading the first three chapters of Candide, I could say that Voltaire wrote this book to teach people about philosophy and about society. This novel is filled with values as well and there are important lessons that it teaches us about life.

The first element that I noticed was the constant tone of some of the characters, especially those who were supposed to have a lot of wisdom. These characters seem to be speaking in a teacher-like way. One perfect example is the following quote, “ Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause.”(chapt.1) In this segment of the we are introduced to the teachings of Master Pangloss. They are very profound thoughts and they reflect a lot of society’s aspects. When I read this line for the first time I thought it was a very powerful quote and that everything it said was very true. You will always have an effect that took place because something caused it. This is nature and science combined with logics.

At the end of this first chapter, I encountered a scene were Candide has a romantic moment with Miss Cunegonde, “very particular; their lips met; their eyes sparkled; their knees trembled; their hands strayed.”(chapt.1)When I saw this I was a little disgusted because at the beginning of the novel they mention that Candide lived in that house because it was very probable that he was the son of the sister of the Baroness. If this were to be true, then he would be their nephew and therefore the cousin of the girl that he is in love with. For me this is to a level somewhat incestuous, and maybe Voltaire is trying to tell us something about human kind and love when mentioning this part. When he gets caught committing those acts of “incest” he is punished and the consequence he gets it very bad. This teaches us about the effect- cause theory. It is a way to manipulate the reader and make the result tragic to scare people so they know that it is morally wrong and they shouldn’t do it.

In the next chapter they show us how Candide is very vain and proud. He is given two choices, but because he felt humiliated, he decided to take neither and assume the consequences. “In vain did he remonstrate to them that the human will is free, and that he chose neither; they obliged him to make a choice, and he determined, in virtue of that divine gift called free will, to run the gauntlet six and thirty times.”(chapt. 2) In this part of the novel, he prefers to suffer before he looses his honor. This is probably a quality that Voltaire wanted young men to impose in their life’s, and he used this method to teach about the sacrifices you must do for you vanity and your pride, teaching us to be modest.

Finally, Voltaire shows us how Candide learns the lesson and tries to apply to it to his life. This is a key element to this novel simply because the book teaches us, that we too like the main character should use what we are being told in that book in our life’s, when we need it the most. We should reflect on it and act upon its values and morals. We are all a Candide in our own way. “Now I am convinced that my Master Pangloss told me truth when he said that everything was for the best in this world; for I am infinitely more affected with your extraordinary generosity than with the inhumanity of that gentleman in the black cloak and his wife." (chapt. 3)

The meaning behind the title of The Crying of Lot 49

I went back to the end of chapter 6 to analyze into further depth the ending of the Crying of Lot 49. I wanted to focus on how the title of the novel relates to the end of the story being narrated.

To start, I found the first word of the title in the following quote, “We’re in luck. Lorren Passerine, the finest auctioneer in the West, will be crying tonight.”(151) In this citation of the text, the person speaking is referring to crying as the word used to describe the action of calling out the auction sale. It is rather strange to think of this act as “crying,” but in a way, the auctioneer is actually using a lot of pressure on the public for them to raise their paddles and offer more money. This people are actually begging for more money to be offered, but they do it in a threatening tone which manipulates the audience. When we say, The Crying of Lot 49, we are relating it to this part of the book and we think mostly of the desperate need to sell a lot. In this case, it is Lot 49.

The next word we see is lot. Now this word appears several times in the novel. Most of the times it is related to Mucho Mass, Who worked in a sort of parking lot and that later on mentions a lot were his radio station was located. Pierce left a lot of lots behind and they were very important for Oedipa to discover all her findings on the great mystery. A lot can also have other meanings besides a place. A lot, is a great amount of something, it is a certain amount of objects, it is to draw something from somewhere to have a luck based victory, to receive an inheritance, to divide, distribute, etc. After seeing some of the many definitions of this word, I could analyze that maybe the title is not exactly referring to the use of an object that would be raised to decide who would keep the collection of stamps. The lot could also be the collection itself which was denominated as a lot and was given a specific number to be able to identify it.

Finally we find the number 49. This number is a number that you don’t interpret as a luck number (7) or as a misfortune number (13). 49 is very a very neutral number, but it is exactly before fifty. Fifty is considered as half. You always refer as something that is half as 50%. Being fifty years old, is also considered living up to the half of a life time. When you see 49, it is the point in which you are about to be in the center of life, but are not still there yet. It’s more or less like a limbo. For the novel to include 49 in its title, the number has to have some significance, buy up until now, it can be anything, from the paddle 49 that will buy the collection to the age that person has or just the number assigned to the stamp collection in the auction, the collection being a lot.

Oedipa ends the story by referring to the title in the following way, “The auctioneer cleared his throat. Oedipa settled back, to wait the crying of lot 49.”(152) This symbolizes the whole plot of the book in one sentence. Oedipa’s anxiety to find the answer to the mystery is reflected in the way she awaits this crying. Finally we as readers can conclude that all of the efforts made by this woman add up to this crucial moment that will define the last piece to the puzzle. When she hears the crying of lot 49, everything will be clear for her, and her journey will end, or at least it will be near to its end. The Crying of Lot 49 is not only the title of this book, but it is the element that puts all the pieces together and leaves the reader almost clueless and full of expectations towards the final answer that the mystery will reveal.

Corrections

1. Belivig

Believing

The word was not completed. Believing was what I meant to write.

2. This symbols appears many times throughout

symbol

The write use of the word has to be in singular form because I am referring to one particular symbol, and not to various. The word “This” indicates that it’s singular as well.

Fantastical material in The Crying of Lot 49

I decided to reread a part of chapter 5 of the book The Crying of Lot 49 which caught my attention due to the fact that it contained a lot of fantastic material. Throughout this segment of the chapter, the characters experiment various hallucinations, dreams and fantasies.

When I observed that fantasy was present in this chapter so many times, I concluded that it was probably a tool that the author used to make reference to the 60’s which was a time that promoted drugs. The hippie culture consumed drugs such as LSD which produced hallucinations and strong sensations. This drug is mentioned in various occasions in this chapter and in the throughout the novel.

The first example that I found related to the hallucinations mentioned in the book is the following , “decorating each alienation, each species of withdrawal, a cufflink, decal, aimless doodling, there was always the post horn She grew so to expect it that perhaps she did not see it quite as often as she later was to remember seeing it.” (100) Here, Oedipa begins to imagine that she has seen the horn symbol almost everywhere she goes and almost in every object she looks at. She is imagining this things and she doesn’t really know why. One possible theory is that she is actually using LSD. The other possibility is that she has begun to loose her mind due to the stress and confusion.

The next example appears some pages later when Oedipa goes to Dr. Hilarious office to see if he could help her to get her head straight. But what she encounters that day is Dr. Hilarious gone completely mad, fantasizing that he is being followed by Israelis searching for revenge because he used to be a Nazi. It is also inferred that because Hilarious is prescribing LSD to people, he becomes so paranoid after a time that he looses his mind. In the following quote, he comments on fantasy and of the importance it should be given after Oedipa asks him about it. “‘I came,’ she said ‘hoping you could talk me out of fantasy.’ – ‘Cherish it!’ cried Hilarious, fiercely. ‘What else do any of you have? Hold it tightly by its little tentacle, don’t let the Freudians coax it away or the pharmacists poison it out of you. What ever it is, hold it dear, for when you loose it you go over by that much to the others. You begin to cease to be.” (113) In this fragment of the chapter the Dr. is really crazy, but he does say something that is very true. Without any fantasy and dreams, you are nothing. It’s like ceasing to exist because you are not using your brain to create. Hilarious may also be saying this to induce Oedipa into LSD so that his business will continue to prosper.

Finally I read the quotation below, which is said by Mucho Maas to Oedipa in their reencounter, “Let me tell you. The bad dream that I used to have all the time, about the car lot, remember that?...It was only that sign in the lot, that’s what scared me...We were members of the National Automobile Dealer’s Association. N.A.D.A. Just this creaking metal sign that said nada, nada against the blue sky. I used to wake up hollering.”(118) In this part of the text, Mucho shares a dream he has repeatedly and that used to torment him. Nada, meaning nothing in Spanish, may represent the emptiness and hollowness of his life with Oedipa as a couple. This dream could also have been caused by drugs, since we are informed that he became a junky because of the prescriptions of LSD given to him by Dr. Hilarious. This was the final example of the evidence of fantastic material in this novel.

The Infinite Cry: Chapter: The Crying of Lot 49

In chapter six of The Crying of Lot 49, the story is given an ending and Oedipa remains waiting for an answer to the mystery. This final segment of the novel conveys some specific topics which are mentioned in the last pages of the book.

The topic of paranoia reappears in this chapter and it is directly related this time to Trystero and the conflicts against his organization. The stress that all of this caused and still cause on people is evident in various ways, including the following, “And with the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the foundation of the Thurn and Taxis legitimacy is lost forever among other splendid delusions. Possibilities for paranoia become abundant.”(136) This mental sensation of desperation and uncertainty is very obvious throughout the book and it is related to the main conflict as we can see above.

Later on in that chapter, Oedipa encounters the possibility that all of the conspiracy she has been trying to solve may actually be a trick played by Pierce. She contemplates many options as well. She is so confused that she considers the possibility of being insane. Fallopian is the character that makes Oedipa reflect about this situation in the following manner, “Has it ever occurred to you, Oedipa, that somebody’s putting you on? That this is al a hoax, maybe something Inverarity set up before he died.”(138) If this is true, then it means that all this time she has been looking for something that doesn’t even exist. The final answer then probably does not matter, meaning that what was really important all this time was the journey that Oedipa took to discover herself. She ended completely alone without family or friends, but she found out who she was.

The use of drugs and all their culture continues appearing in this novel, reflecting the society of the 1960’s. Oedipa mentions LSD so much that there is a point at the end of the novel were she can be considered as an addict because of the things she hallucinates and comments about. “Either you have stumbled indeed, without the aid of LSD or other indole alkaloids onto a secret richness and concealed density of a dream;”(140) The world of drugs seems to take over her life as well as a sign of ultimate paranoia and desperation.

At the end of the novel, Oedipa never finds out why Trystero appeared in the play, its true meaning in the system, or the essence of the whole investigation. She goes into Lot 49 to find out who was the person that wanted to buy the stamp collection, but the book ends there. After analyzing it carefully I deduced that this novel has a communication issue that appears throughout the story. Oedipa lost her husband, psychiatrist, friends, lover, and even the people that were helping her due to miscommunication. At the end, the final answer is never told. This made me realize that what the author is trying to show us is that the final verdict is not essential to the story, but the path that Oedipa took is. Therefore, this novel is not about a conspiracy, but about Oedipa as a representation of society and how she changes and ends decaying at the end, loosing all hope.

This novel is infinite, in a way simply because as more clues are given, the more the mystery extends, and the less closely you get to the final answer. The book ends before given an important clue, which can be Pierce as the buyer of the stamps. This theme related as well to Slaughter House-Five, since this novel is infinite due to the continuation of its time sequence and the repetition of the plot various times without ever changing. What this shows me as a reader is that authors of that period of time seemed to change the way a book was written and decided to create a movement were time or events were not as important as the development of the character internally and how they interacted within their society.

Vocabulary:

annihilation: total destruction

incommensurate: not commensurate; disproportionate; inadequate

hoax: something intended to deceive or defraud