Uncle Vanya (Act III)

This act begins like every other I have read, with a very calm and inactive mood as the characters continue to whine about their effortless and pointless lives. All along, the play has consisted of a depressive tone in which little action takes place and a small number of events developed. Surprisingly, close to the end the characters begin to reveal their desires and sentiments, furthermore the emotions they have had all along and have been holding down, begin to burst.

Initially we are introduced to Sonia’s misery due to her unattainable love. She has fallen in love so deeply with Dr. Astroff and by not receiving his affection back it has made her feel undesirable and unattractive. Given that she has now created a friendship with Helen she decides to set forth her feelings and let her step-mother know about her state of mind. Both of them come to the agreement that Helen will speak with the doctor discreetly and try to figure out if the love is reciprocal. A moment before Helen leaves, Sonia briefly remarks “No, it is better not to know—and yet—there may be hope.” With this in mind I began considering what I would prefer. Would I radar have the illusion that my desire was possible even though deep inside I sensed it wasn’t, or would I radar know the disappointing truth and face the fact that my desire is inaccessible? After considering it I determined it would be best to confront reality and move on from there. It is always best to deal with reality than to postpone a fantasy that will sooner or later come to an end.

The conversation that takes place between Helen and Sonia allows us to understand a little better eachs personality, especially Helens. Right from the start Helen has been portrayed as the victim, stuck with a husband she no longer loves and to a life she barely stands, but instances of her conversation permit us to see that she is only a victim because she does nothing to change the fact that she is. When Sonia discusses labors she could do in the country estate to impede her boredom, Helen responds uninterested and unexcited, not even giving a chance to any of the proposals. Another occasion is her unhappiness with being married to the professor. Occasionally she complains about her innocent mistake of getting married with the wrong person, but as several of the men presented in the play devout their love to her, she ignores them and persists on remaining miserably married to the professor denying her feelings. Finally I grasped a little of insensibility in Helens personality in her attempt to extract information from the doctor. Even though she had been placed in a very uncomfortable situation, if offering to do the deed she should have done it as she promised. Lamentably Helen had agreed with Sonia that she would figure out in a discreet and prudent manner whether Sonia’s feeling were mutual. While doing so she directly asked Dr. Astroff if he felt romantic sentiments towards Sonia, completely opposite to what she had promised.

Further on I also focused on Dr, Astroff character. I found it very interesting that he felt passionate of the environment. His extended informative speeches about deforestation and other ecological issues which seemed to bore the rest of the characters were actually very interesting to me. It amazed me that a novel written in 1895 had a message of environmental awareness. Additionally, I found it very comical that his passion for the environment was sort of incorporated to his personality. For instance when revealing his feeling for Helena, he referred to her as “Oh, my sweet tigress! don’t look at me in that way; I am an old bird!”

In this play love is presented as the reality it is and not simplicity like most contemporary films portray it to be. Usually romantic movies have the typical cliché in which love is always found in the most simplistic form, but in reality it is the complete opposite. The play reflects the difficulties and obstacles to which most people can relate and which most people fear such as not being loved back, not loving at all or loving the wrong person. Each character portrays a different situation which develops through the play. Will any of these desires become possible? Will any character find true love or will they remain stuck in their unsatisfied states?

Uncle Vanya (Act II)

The beginning of this act immediately introduces us to a mood of distress and precaution as the professor awakens from a disturbing nightmare and finds himself disoriented. At once we are able to begin recognizing each characters trait more profoundly and insightfully to an extent to which our understanding of their reflections and actions are clearer. On the previous act we were able to perceive the pessimistic attitude of each character and their overall feelings, but the act didn’t convey the reasons behind such personalities. In this act we get the opportunity to grasp closely the explanations for their inexplicable behaviors. For instance, Helena, the professor’s wife, appeared to live contently looking after her husband and his daughter, but her small reaction to his foolish conduct revealed her unhappiness. “This is unbearable! Tell me, what is it that you want me to do?” While replying this to her husband while whimpering we recognize her desperation and misery.

After analyzing each of the characters desires and reactions I had the chance to question why they reacted in such a manner and why they felt so discontent. I concluded that it was due to their lack of hope. Like most of them portray, their elder age prevented them from being able to do certain things such as falling in love, at least they believed it did. Their pessimistic attitudes towards life and the possibilities it presented stopped them from revealing certain feelings as well as overcoming difficulties they didn’t agree with. I believe, instead of becoming stuck on your past you must act in order to change your future which was a feature most characters lacked. Aside from being inactive towards change they as well focused too much on their past and assumed it was unchangeable. Remarks such as “… I am old, I am tired, I am trivial; my sensibilities are dead. I could never attach myself to anyone again…” display the unhappiness of the characters as well as their effortless attitude to change that. The fact that the doctor was old didn’t mean he was incapable of loving someone, he just didn’t realize he was. Both Helen and Sonia had interest in him and one of them attempted to portray it, sadly the doctor couldn’t realize it.

Another reason for which I believe most characters are unhappy, I mentioned in my past blog, and enforce my opinion with the evidence that is provided in this second act. Clearly there is a tangled web of lovers which has now developed into unattainable love. The age difference, as well as ordinary mistakes committed previously form the characters has now evolved into a major problem in which true feelings can’t be expressed. Helen is no longer in love with her husband and is forced to devote her time to him because of her commitment in marriage, Sonia is in love with the Dr. which simply refuses to love anyone again and is unaware of the fact that both Sonia and Helen have a remote interest in him, finally Uncle Vanya is interested in Helen which refuses his love, afraid of the consequences that may take part in it. Due to their inability to convey their feeling s and act accordingly to them the characters have placed themselves in this web in which they sacrifice their happiness for others benefits. Is it truly worth hiding ones feelings for the sake of others? Will this unattainable love become attainable for someone?

Throughout the second act I noticed a series of signs which seemed to constantly come up. One of them was the Watchman and his rattle. Scenes were constantly being interrupted by the regular rattle, until the end of the act when Helen asks for his silence. I quickly searched online for its symbolism in Russia and I learned that in the century provincial Russia the night watchman would tap the grounds with his stick to signal that all was well which I consider completely ironic due to the major amount of chaos going on in the house. I also found it interesting that the deceased wife of Serebrakoff was mentioned twice. Does this have a special symbol or was it just part of the play? Could it be a retrospective of the characters being stuck in their pasts? Finally I would lie to emphasis on the drastic end. Both Sonia and Helene have at last gathered up the courage to be sincere with each other and get past their feuds, excitedly they decide to put music on and immediately after the professor deny their permission the curtains close. Is it Chekhov’s demonstration of their unhappiness and lack of hope? Will the play continue in a melodramatic mood?

Uncle Vanya (Act I)

Immediately after reading the first couple of lines I noticed the pessimistic outlook of the characters to their own lives and towards those who surrounded them. They aspired for a transformation from their boring, drained and disappointing lives to a rebirth of hope in which they wouldn’t mourn for their misused lives. Chekhov introduces the focus of a wasted live in the sense of not only feeling alienated from society and its function but as well feeling distant from oneself.

The initial conversation between Astroff and Marina demonstrates the lack of excitement in both of their lives. While they hold a conversation in which none of them is actually paying attention we can notice the weariness as Marina sits knitting a stocking and is doubtful of the past, as well as it seems that Astroff holds a conversation with himself rambling and whining of how the excess of work has changed him. You would imagine that someone who has chosen medicine as a profession feels passionate about it, so how come he complained that working made him a different man? It was age which changed him, inevitably as time goes by our bodies, our minds and specially our strengths change, it is not that existence is tedious or senseless as Astroff proclaims. While he whimpered about the silly people that surrounded him he referred to himself as “I ask nothing, I need nothing, I love no one…” This self reflection portrays him as a senseless being, but as he reveals with his next memory about the dead patient in Malitskoi he exposes the fact that he is still concerned for others, he feels guilty because a man died under his watch, besides his constant complaining demonstrates he still loves and still cares.

When Voitski enters the scene we are again introduced to a depressive and melancholic man. His dissatisfaction and constant grouching resemble a man displeased with his live, opposite from Astroff, Voitski blames his discontent on others. For instance he blames the change in schedules and the fact that he oversleeps on the professor. Besides from his frustration, with Voitski we also get the chance to begin noticing Chekov’s humorous side. All along he had been presenting a depressive play with miserable and disappointed characters, until Voitski began ridiculing his relatives while describing them. “I don't do anything now but croak like an old raven. My mother, the old magpie, is still chattering about the emancipation of woman, with one eye on her grave and the other on her learned books…” How he depicts each character and compares them with animals or mocks their habits and age are evidence of Chekov’s desire to add satire to the play. The author furthermore includes ridicule in the play when inserting characters such as Telegin referred to as Waffles because of his face. This personage supports the child of his ex-wife and lover, even though he was abandoned by her a day after his marriage. Lamentably he believes that what he is doing is keeping his pride by supporting her, even do that means he will be unhappy, to the audience it’s just plainly absurd.

Close to the end of the act we notice how there is a tangled web of love and envy. Sonia demonstrates her love for the doctor, but previously he had said he loved no one and above it he is disliked by Sonia’s uncle. On the other hand Voitski is in love with Helena, her brother-in-law, which he resents, wife. How will this set of twisted stories end? Will they affect the estates development? As I read the play I also questioned the fact of the constant pauses and silences. Where they just written as an intermission between the characters dialogues or did they signify an uncomfortable moment and lack in the fluidity of the conversations?

Seize the Day (Chapters 1-2)

A World Based on Appearances

Instantly after I read the first couple of lines, I realized “Seize the Day” would be a novel like no other we have read so far. The omniscient narrative voice made it a more descriptive and analytical narrative in which all points of views and circumstances could symbolize something of importance to the novel, unlike the others. Besides, this story seemed to unfold in a contemporary moment with more relatable events to present-day.

Initially we are introduced to our main character and to a trait which majorly describes his persona. “When it came to concealing his troubles, Tommy Wilhelm was not less capable than the next fellow. So at least he thought…” (Chap. 1 Pg 1) This satirical remark from the narrator allowed us to distinguish Tommy’s insecurities. Based on the fact that he is attempting to cover up his true feelings we can perceive that his not in touch with his sentiments and that probably he is a very insecure man which hides his true self. As a hook, the author takes the opportunity to mock the character and all of us who share Wilhelm’s issues given that people which relate to it, presume no one notices their effort to disguise how their feeling, even though that is not always the case. As Tommy’s typical morning carried on we get to learn more about his personality. One of the characteristics which amazed me the most was the fact that “He bought the paper and some cigars and drank a Coca-Cola or two before he went in to breakfast with his father.” (Chap. 1 Pg. 2) The fact that Wilhelm smoked cigars and drank Coca-Cola before breakfast reflects he is a very nervous and anxious person. Both of those habits demonstrated he had vices which were highly affecting him. That morning, as well, he hadn’t met his father on the fourteenth floor as he usually did. Instantaneously Tommy freaks out and has a feeling that trouble lies ahead of him clearly indicating he was an enclosed person which disliked change. Wilhelm’s morning continues as accustomed and through flashbacks presented by his thoughts we get to discover more about his peculiar personality. For instance we come across the meaningless lies he tells such as commenting that he had bought his shirt instead of saying it was a present from his boss. We also realize how lonely Tommy is. In one case he went to the movies alone because he didn’t want to play gin with the same people due to his constant loses.

Further on in the chapter the narrator begins describing an investment Wilhelm has done on the market with his neighbor Mr. Tamkin. The lust for money is clearly represented and the anxiety of its significance is present especially with Tommy’s dad which considers money a way to measure success. Due to the fact that Tommy had recently lost his job we have to opportunity to witness their weird and mistreating relationship in which Mr. Adler, Tommy’s dad, demonstrated his shame and disillusion while Tommy accumulates rage and searches for acceptance. By comparing both father and son last-names we can easily figure out that something has been altered. I first imagined that Tommy had decided to change it due to the hatred towards his father but as we advance in the narrative we find out it was in his attempt of becoming an actor.

When adding up all the factors presented, I assumed this novel would highly concentrate on appearances, superficiality and materialism. The constant concentration in the cloth their wearing, the importance given to money and other factors signify a major theme “But how we love looking fine in the eyes of the world…” (Chap. 1 Pg10-11) By the end of the second chapter we see Tommy along with the other characters introduced as shallow but Tommy redeems himself when he admits to having made mistakes in his live, in other words, he takes credit for his own failings. "For all the time I have wasted I am very sorry," (Chap. 1 Pg. 22)

An attention-grabbing fact which I found through the first two chapters was the constant apparition of cigars and water. I believe cigars represent a harmful vice of which Tommy has become obsessed with, slowly it harms him inside just as the fact of hiding his feelings and wanting to be accepted so bad slowly kills him inside. Concerning water I could only relate to the fact that he was drowning metaphorically meaning he is being suffocated by his own self and the society which surrounds him. May the two symbols have significance or are they just plain coincidence? Will Tommy begin to change and retain himself from destructive habits and accept himself or will he allow society to bring him down?

Candide (Chapters 20-30)

This final section of the novel begins when Martin and Candide sight the coast of France and begin speaking harshly about the country. Martin mentions how the people were fools, too subtle, stupid, and pretended to be witty. He remarks “…wherever you go in France, you will find that their three chief occupations are making love, backbiting, and talking nonsense.” (Chap. 21 Pg. 94) Indeed by comprehending Martins pessimistic attitude we could predict that that would be said about any place he visited, but what amazed me about this statement was the fact that the author of the novel was born in Paris and lived great amounts of his life in it. Why would Voltaire be so unsympathetic when speaking about his native country? Had he experienced an atrocious event? Later on in the story we encounter a similar contradiction when the novelist refers to England. In his life he had clearly communicated that the British government and culture were the most progressive and admirable, even how in Candide he demonstrates an admiral’s execution for an irrelevant motive. Perhaps Voltaire’s purpose was to convey the fact that even the most appreciable places, events, and people had imperfections, thus life was practically miserable.

Further on in the novel Candide initiates to become unsatisfied after traveling basically around the world after a women which has become nearly unreachable. He starts questioning the world and its purpose thus asks Martin, “Do you think that men have always massacred each other, as they do to-day, that they have always been false, cozening, faithless, ungrateful…” (Chap. 21 Pg. 96) Martin answers back with a question that goes, “Do you think that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could find them?” (Chap. 21 Pg. 96) Off course that the natural instinct of an animal is to attack, trap and devour its prey for purposes of survival of itself and its offspring, but are we considered animals? Ounce more I believe Voltaire is somehow positioning the human race as a salvage beast that acts like animals, but indeed can we be considered animals based on our behaviors? I consider that the natural instinct of an animal or human is selfish and based on its own survival therefore it can’t be established whether humans have acted this way in the past or if they will in the future, it can only be recognized that it’s a natural egotistical instinct that we all posses, the real question lays on whether we will be able to control it.

Later on in the narrative I came against a topic which I’ve been arguing along the blogs which revolves around the paper the women played in the novel. Before hand I had mentioned that women were usually seen as objects and were mistreated and unappreciated. On chapter XXII the character of a seductive and alluring woman named the Marchioness is introduced. “Your passion for her started from the moment you picked up her handkerchief. Be so good as to pick up my garter.” (Chap.22 Pg. 105) After dinner she takes Candide to a private room where she uses her seductive powers to attract and lure men and extract from them whatever she desires, on this case she was handed two enormous diamonds which she noticed on Candide’s hand.

All along the novel the characters, their mistakes and their journeys make up an allegory that is used by Voltaire to symbolize the idea of finding a balance between pessimism and optimism. To enhance this message he uses traits on each of the characters to represent each of their personalities. The characters faults, the voyages they overtake and the individual they expose to be, reveal a feature which allows us to understand an overall significance. For instance Pangloss philosophies demonstrate him as an optimistic character always hopping for the best and believing everything indeed is for a good purpose since the world was created by a perfect being. On the other hand we come across Martin, another philosopher with complete different theories. Martin’s philosophies confirmed he was a pessimistic individual given that he believed everyone lived unhappily and that in spite of having wealth such as Prococurante, everyone grew to be discontented. To sum up the novels metaphor it can be said “When man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there to dress it and keep it, to work in fact; which proves that man was not born into an easy life.” (Chap. 3o Pg. 143) Meaning that malice and sin will take place such as that committed by Adam and Eve, but to make life bearable one must accommodate to the circumstances, labor and tolerate them.

Candide (Chapters 16-20)

Chapter sixteen continues with the adventurous journey of Candide and his servant after leaving Cunégonde and the old lady behind. After crossing the frontier they come upon to ladies being chased by monkeys. To my amazement after Candide kills the monkeys the ladies mourn over their deaths. Why could they possibly be whipping over the decease of two creatures that were chasing them? Do monkeys have significance or symbolism to their culture? To my astonishment Cacambo replied, “Why should you find it so strange that in some parts of the world monkeys obtain ladies favours? They are partly human, just as I am partly Spanish?” (Chap. 16 Pg. 70) After reading this remark I found the comparison ridiculous, the fact that Cacambo was partly Spanish was a matter completely different from that of a monkey being partly human. Even though the human race has been believed to evolve from monkeys I consider them to be animals and regard it as immoral and senseless for a woman to relate in such an intimate way with an animal. Perhaps Voltaire intended to mock and demean the human race by comparing it to an undeveloped and salvage creature.

Next I came up with a sentence which I believe reflects the occurrences of the entire novel. “In fact, the laws of nature teach us to kill our fellow creatures, and that is what happens in every corner of earth.” (Chap. 16 Pg. 71) I consider it mirrors the incidents of the novel given that it states that the misfortunes and violence taking place on earth are due to the fact that we were brought to the planet and our natural reactions are usually selfish and it’s within our nature to battle against others. Along the novel we constantly find vicious encounters among the characters, for instance we can take into account the old ladies past, Cunégondes abuse by soldiers, the Anabaptists death and the constant wars between Bulgars and Abars.

When reaching Oreillons territory Cacambo and Candide become prisoners soon to be eaten, but after the truth is revealed they are treated with politeness. “They offered them girls, gave them refreshments, and led them back to the borders…” (Chap. 16 Pg. 72) This declaration reminded me of my past blog were I mentioned how women were treated abusively. This statement reaffirms my believe, since it reveals that women were viewed as objects, inclusively they were used in offerings for courtesy.

Cacambo and Candide continue through their voyage in search of a way to reunite with Cunégonde. In their journey they come across a placed called Eldorado were they come to stay for a couple of weeks. Among this civilization they come to see a different face to the world. Individuals in this place tend to avoid materialism, prisons, and court cases among others, “It is probably the country where all goes well; for there must obviously be some such place.” (Chap. 17 Pg. 77) Candides overview of this civilization is a sign of his optimism. Even though he has gone through many misfortunes and has had to confront unbearable aspects of life he still believes there is a place in the world where all goes well. In this hidden society supposedly everyone remains happy, “With the agreement of the whole nation, they made a law that no inhabitant should ever leave our little kingdom; and that is how our innocence and happiness have been preserved.” (Chap. 18 Pg. 78) This quote reminded me of Candides past. Before being expelled from Thunder-ten-tronckhs castle, Candide had not experienced what the real world was actually about. He lived with ignorance and unawareness of the true facts going on, and assumed life was exactly as he was taught by Pangloss. Fortunately or unfortunately when being barred from the mansion and experiencing life’s disgraces he understood the worlds truth, but before hand he lived happily among the nobility of Westphalia.


Coming close to the end of this section I noticed that in Eldorado there was a constant appearance of humming birds. For instance the old man’s seat was made from humming bird feathers, they were dressed with humming bird garments to meet the king and in the banquet with him they were served twenty humming birds on a platter. I found it unusual due to the fact that humming birds are really small, rare and fast animals. Is it a coincidence that this animal is constantly mentioned or does it symbolize something?

Along theses chapters I also found a representation of what I believe can come to be the theme of the novel. It stated, “I realise that my country is not much to boast of, but a man should be satisfied with what works moderately.” (Chap. 18 Pg. 83) I interpret this phrase as conforming to what one has, not being too optimistic and expecting too much nor being too pessimistic and anticipating for the worst. A balance must be found were you can settle and conform to what you have. The key to happiness as the book states is complying to yourself, you belongings and your surroundings.

Candide (Chapters 4-9) (Chapters 10-15)

Chapters 4-9

When beginning to read the next couple of chapters I commenced to notice a change on the events and circumstances taking place. All along I had noticed that Candide was lacking in personal opinion due to the fact that he had no experience and no base of comparison, therefore he believed everything he was taught. After being kicked out of the castle he has the opportunity to confront the real world and have his own perspective on life. Soon he becomes aware of all the devastation and cruelty taking place, and his theory on “the perfect world” starts to turn aside. Unfortunately with the reappearance of Pangloss, the progress he had achieves becomes slightly stuck, and Candide begins doubting and contradicting his theory’s against those of Pangloss.

When Pangloss and Candide reunited the philosopher tells him about the misfortune that fell upon Cunégonde, the king, himself and everyone back in the castle. Astounded by the horrible events that took place Candide faints twice, he was devastated by the fact that someone which he considered “…a pearl among women, the masterpiece of nature.” (Chap. 4 Pg. 29) had been so violently treated. It amazed me how he refers to someone which he had kissed ounce as a masterpiece. Clearly noble women were highly respected and admired, and Cunégondes seductive beauty conquered Candide’s heart to a greater extent of that stated in the novel.

When Pangloss finished telling the tragic story he remarked, “But we have been amply avenged, for the Abars did just the same in a neighboring estate which belonged to a Bulgar nobleman.” (Chap. 4 Pg. 28) Based on Pangloss theory everything happened for the best in the best of all worlds, but how could such a catastrophic event be beneficial? The philosopher’s statement included revenge and tragedy for not only the Abars but the Bulgars too. Nothing advantageous was being brought out by this violence, nothing positive would further on occur based on this event. This comes to prove that perhaps the natural world was created perfectly and that humans indeed as well could be created ideally, but the evolution of the human race on the planet had come to show otherwise and not all that took place would lead to a greater good.

As I continued reading I came up with a statement to which I believe everyone can relate, “…love, the comforter of humanity, the preserver of the universe, the soul of all living beings; tender love!” (Chap. 4 Pg. 29) I believe love is the base of life. Our everyday purpose and everything we do is based upon the search or use of love. Love is what keeps us going everyday and preserves human life. Regrettably there are many times in which we are found in the absence of love, therefore cruelty and violence take place such as in the world Voltaire is presenting.

“Men must have somewhat altered the course of nature; for they were not born wolves, yet they have become wolves. God did not give them twenty-four pounders of bayonets, yet they have made themselves bayonets and guns to destroy each other. “(Chap. 4 Pg. 31) stated James the Anabaptist, which contradicted Pangloss theory. Possibly we were brought into the world as flawless beings, but clearly as James states we have evolved into sinners. Humanity has created its own violence and developed ways to propagate it throughout the years; we have become our own enemy.

As the novel develops we can evidently see that the Anabaptist is portrayed as a wise being that comprehends and has actual theories about life. He serves for the good of everyone, inclusively the sailor which struck him. After being punched by a sailor he returns to help him, risking his life and accidently falling into the water. As Candide attempted to help him “… Pangloss stopped him by proving that Lisbon harbor was made on purpose for this Anabaptist to drown there.” (Chap. 5 Pg. 33) Evidently Voltaire is mocking religion and philosophers. The Anabaptist, which wasn’t catholic, indeed is a noble being, wise and helpful to human kind was left to drown based on Pangloss idiotic philosophies.

Further on horrible accident continue to happen, among them an earthquake which ended the lives of thirty thousand men, women and children, the Anabaptists death, and the destruction of Lisbon among others. Along with these events the University of Coimbra announced a sacrificial ritual to prevent approximating earthquakes. “…the Basque and the two men who refused to eat bacon were burnt; and Pangloss was hanged… The same day another earthquake occurred and caused tremendous havoc.” (Chap. 6 Pg. 37) Consequently Candide was left alone, the Anabaptist had drowned, Pangloss was hanged, and Cunégonde was disemboweled by soldiers. What greater good had come from all of this? The sacrifices had been useless and besides the destruction caused to the port, three life’s had been ended pointlessly. Finally Candide was begging to realize the reality of the world, the violence and the imperfection of it.

The section ends again recurring to love. After Candide reunites with Cunégonde and they share their stories Candide kills Cunégondes master as a result forcing them to leave. As I mentioned before, love is the center of the universe and what preserves life. It must always be present among us to prevent violence, but in this case violence was present in the name of love contradicting my initial prediction. Off course that loves will always be `present among humanity causing both harmony and destruction. So possibly if we were brought to the world as ideal beings by a perfect God are we supposed not to love to live in peace? Voltaire expresses a mixture of all the elements of life such as religion, love, and philosophy and through satire attempts to ridicule them and show their reality.

Chapters 10-15

Along the following chapters I found several occasions in which Voltaire used satire to mock both the nobility as well as the catholic religion, but this time the development of the novel had changed drastically. Candide, Cunégonde and the old lady are no longer victims of the world’s violence but they have become included in it. As Candide experiences more of the real life he becomes involved in what the world is really made up of. He has become a murder avoiding his actions and running away along with his lover.

At the beginning we can still see grasps of Pangloss theories left in Candide. Although he has now faced reality and majorly doubts Pangloss theory, Candid still idolizes his lifelong teacher and still recurs to his lessons. For instance after escaping the Inquisitor, Cunégonde whines about the loss of her diamonds and moidores , Candide responds, “Our excellent Pangloss often proved to me, with a sigh, that worldly goods are common to all men, and that everyone has an equal right to them.” (Chap. 10 Pg. 47) Although Candid has a better understanding of the worlds true circumstances, he still refers to nonsense such as believing that everyone has the same rights over natural goods. Even though most of the planet resources can be owned by anyone, during the past the church was dominant over the land and rich resources were owned only by the nobility, therefore although they were common, only aristocracy possessed them.

On the other hand we also see statements mentioned by Candide which lead us to believe he has left Pangloss theories behind. In this case Candide said to his companions, “We are going to a different world, and I expect it is the one were all goes well, for I must admit that regrettable things happen in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one can not approve of.” (Chap. 10 Pg. 48) Finally, throughout his experiences, he has been able to realize that all the misfortunes taking place are not for the best. The tragedies, violence and murders that the three character shad to go through were for no greater good or positive purpose. Indeed Candide has begun to recognize the devastation and hypocrisy of the institution and leaders found on earth.

The characters continue in their voyage towards Cadiz complaining and whimpering about their unfortunate affairs. Cunégonde and Abigail seem to collide on eachs hardships and which were worse, Cunégonde responds, “…unless you have been ravished by two Bulgars, had two stabs in your belly, and two of your country houses demolished; unless you have had two mothers and two fathers butchered before your eyes, and beheld two of your lovers flogged at an auto-da-fé, I don’t how you can rival me, especially as I am a barons daughter with seventy-two quartering’s in my coat of arms…” (Chap. 10 Pg. 48-49) This quote allows us to see mainly all the devastation that had occurred, all the deaths and all the cruelty that was taking place. From Voltaire’s point of view it is clearly represented a mockery towards the aristocracy that due to the fact that she had a certain number of quartering’s and was a baron’s daughter nothing of this sort was supposed to happen to her. Are poor and lower class people the only ones who must suffer? Can’t a baron or inclusively a king have misfortunes? Abigail replied by telling Candide and Cunégonde about her past and all the bad luck and brutality she had gone through and when doing so she mentioned she was the daughter of Pope Urban X and Princess of Palestrina. “Having heard the old woman’s story, the lovely Cunégonde began to pay her respect due to a person of her rank and quality.” (Chap. 13 Pg. 58) It is absurd that Cunégonde would be paying her respect to the old women due to her rank not because of her strength and the troublesome past which she overcame. Clearly Voltaire despised the superficiality of the nobility and the class discrimination.

Along these chapters I also found Voltaire’s way of ridiculing sex and women. Abigail tells her companions of the time when she came against pirates. She mentioned “… what surprised me more was that they put their fingers into a place where we women normally admit nothing but a syringe-tube. These seem to me an unusual custom, but that is how we regard everything new when we first leave our native country.” (Chap. 11 Pg. 51) The ignorance of the women in a way saved them from a greater trauma, but they were being sexually abused and didn’t even know about it. It reflects women’s lack of knowledge and ignorance towards subjects other than manners and servitude. Females were treated as objects as we can see from the rest of the novel; they were sold and bought, sexually abused and emotionally mistreated. On the other hand Voltaire also demonstrates women’s seductive and physical powers for instance Abigail’s beauty when young that allowed her to manipulate men and saved her from for instance being ripped by limbs such as her mother, instead she was protected by the captain that considered her the most beautiful and wanted to keep her.

Along these chapters Voltaire uses a lot of satire to mock Africans, women, aristocracy, popes and sexuality among others. He mentions absurdities such as a priest which they considered compassionate for persuading soldiers not to eat them whole, but only one of their buttocks. Voltaire places the characters in situations of complete devastation and relates them to ridiculous character to emphasize the hypocrisy of society.

Candide (Chapter 1-3)

On my first glance at Candide I was completely lost since I knew so little about Voltaire and the historical events that took place during the time the novel was written, because of this I decided to do a little research on background information to be able to fully comprehend the story and the message behind it. Initially I searched for the time the book was published which I found to be in 1759; as of there I began making connections from which I derived that the Enlightenment was taking place. This movement consisted of the rebirth of all aspects of society were new philosophies arose as well as new religious, economical and political theories. Voltaire took great part in this moment in time since he came up with controversial theories that defied the traditional believes of society and proposed a reform on the relationships between Church and State.

Based on this I reread the first three chapters and was able to find an ironic and satirical mood which immediately reminded me of The Crying of Lot 49. Voltaire as well as Pynchon used a sarcastic allegory to represent his ideals and ridicule the institutions of the time. Both authors recurred to the characters names as a form of mockery. Pynchon for instance, named his characters after their absurd personalities such as Mr. Hilarius the psychologist or Mr. Rosemann the lawyer which acted contrary to how they were expected to behave. Voltaire also used name placing to transmit how he felt about the characters; inclusively he named the Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh, which is an unserious and primitive word to demoralize the aristocratic family’s pride. I also related the name placing to Gulliver’s Travels in which random letters that come close to being unpronounceable are used. On Gulliver’s Travels we find words such as the Houyhnhnms or Lhnuwnh and on Candide we find the town of Wald-berghoff-trarbkdikdorff.

Throughout the novel I perceived Voltaire’s disgust towards certain organizations established during his time and I found it very interesting to see his way of criticizing them. On the beginning of the novel we can clearly see his intentions of undermining the aristocracy and nobles. “The old servants of the house suspected him to have been the son of the Baron's sister, by a very good sort of a gentleman of the neighborhood, whom that young lady refused to marry, because he could produce no more than threescore and eleven quarterings in his arms; the rest of the genealogical tree belonging to the family having been lost through the injuries of time.” (Chapter 1) This just comes to show the superficiality of nobility given that the baron’s sister, as stated above, refused to marry Candide’s father based on the amount of quarterings in his arms, this demonstrates that ancestry and distinctions were farther more important when it came to marriage than true love. Voltaire also mocks the aristocracy when mentioning “The Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows…” (Chapter 1) When emphasizing on the fact that the lord was powerful because his castle not only had gates but also windows he is stressing a ridiculous idea and mocking the baron’s power. It is expected that every castle, inclusively any house would have windows, therefore Voltaire is mocking the barons power reflected on his belongings and the lack of real authority he possesses.

Voltaire also mocks philosophers by means of Pangloss which is set of to be Candide’s wise advisor and mentor. He supposedly is a clever and “…the greatest philosopher of the whole province, and consequently of the whole world.” (Chapter 2) One of Pangloss major philosophies consists on the fact that the world was created by God, a perfect being, therefore everything that composes it and that happens in it is for a further purpose that makes part of Gods plan for the planet. I consider as Voltaire this to be a ridiculous theory based upon the imperfections that we find on a daily basis. Why would a perfect God create so much suffering, wars and poverty? Could there really be a purpose for it? Pangloss principles and teachings made me think of Candide as a vulnerable and ignorant kid. For his entire life he has been raised in a palace which walls protect him from the world’s truth, he has no experience and only learns what his master, Pangloss teaches him.

As soon as he is expelled from the castle for kissing the barons daughter, Candide begins to experience lives reality and all the miseries it is made up. For instance on his first adventures when he is banished from Westphalia. As soon as he is kicked out he travels to the next town where he is saved from death by two men who offer him food and drinks. Unfortunately he is later pushed to join the King of the Bulgar’s army where he witnesses torment and anguish. He later lives through it as “he was asked which he liked better, to run the gauntlet six and thirty times through the whole regiment, or to have his brains blown out with a dozen musket-balls?” (Chapter 2)

The last character of this section completely surprised me due to the fact that unlike all the others characters he was truly a generous being. James the Anabaptist was indeed so kind that after all the suffering that Candide went through he still was convinced of Pangloss theory, “Candide, penetrated with so much goodness, threw himself at his feet, crying, "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." (Chapter 3) Once again this sentence brings us back to Voltaire constant mocking, in this occasion I believe he is doing so to religion. James was a Anabaptist therefore he was not catholic, but still he was able to be a generous human being asking for nothing in return. Besides of this the “inhumanity of that gentlemen in the black cloak” reminded me instantly of a priest, thus insinuating the cruelty of a priest, supposedly a sacred being.

Crying of Lot 49 (Chapter 2)

Cheating Outside Appearances

After reading the second chapter I began to get more comfortable with the novels structure and Pynchon’s form of writing. This section of the book was much more fluid and its context was explaining a linear plot taking place and not just a random bunch of thoughts and memories as presented in chapter one.

The first detail that came to my attention was the description of San Narciso when Oedipa has just arrived. “Nothing was happening. She looked down a slope, needing to squint for the sunlight, onto a vast sprawl of houses which had grown up all together, like a well-tended crop, from the dull brown earth; and she thought of the time she’d open a transistor radio to replace a battery and seen her first printed circuit.” (pg. 14)This sentence caused a bunch of questions to arise. Why would she compare a city with a battery circuit? What did she mean by “nothing was happening”? Where is San Narciso?

I first began answering my questions by researched for San Narciso. I found out no such city exists, so why would Pynchon make up a city? Could he have a purpose? After thinking about it I came up with two predictions. Initially I thought of San Francisco, Oedipa’s description of the city from a hill reminded me of my visit to San Francisco which I picture just as she mentioned, “the ordered swirl of houses and streets, from this high angle, sprang at her.” (pg. 14) Anyway if the author was referring to San Francisco why would he change its name to San Narciso? Was he prudently making fun of it? My second prediction came in relation to the cities name San Narciso, I immediately made a connection with narcissism which is a trait which derived from a mythological creature which fell in love with his reflection named Narcissus. Therefore narcissism is a characteristic of someone which is self-centered and self-absorbed on a personal appearance. Once again I questioned the relationship between this mockery and a city and indeed I came up with the fact that Pynchon doesn’t like the United States, maybe more specifically Californian cities, perhaps he believes they are superficial and that is why he describes them in such a ridicule way.

The next aspect that came to my attention was Oedipa’s initial reaction to Metzger. She thought he was so good-looking that she considered it was sort of a set up. “…They, somebody up there, were putting her on.” (pg.17) but what did she mean by They? Who was up there? I consider she was referring to God or some spiritual creature. This adds a religious aspect to the novel, but at the same time makes fun of, if this spiritual figure was taken seriously it would not be mentioned because of a handsome lawyer. This lawyer is a very curious character of whom intentions I question. I believe he was so informal when bringing alcohol and being so flirtatious with Oedipa when such a serious matter would be discussed. I consider his superficial personality and his true self is represented by means of describing his fat stomach which had been hidden by the suit. To me this symbolizes the fact that things aren’t always what they appear to be, for instance Metzger looked like an attractive men just coming to solve Pierces will, but indeed his intentions may not have been those but to take advantage of the power Oedipa now held over Pierces belongings and he actually appeared more attractive since his fat body lay hidden behind his suit.

This novel reminded me of Slaughterhouse-Five when referring to the three musketeers. On Vonnegut’s novel the soldiers of war call themselves the three musketeers since they are so close and are fighting together, on The Crying of Lot 49 the father refers to himself the kid and the dog as three musketeers since they are very close and going through the same situation together. Coming close to the end I remembered Dante’s Inferno when in the movie the father replies: “You are for salvation; I am for the Pit.” (pg. 30)This reminded me of hell and heaven and that based on certain sins lays your destiny after death. In this case the dog and child would go directly to heaven; on the other hand the father would go to hell for having involved the other two characters in such a violent situation.
When I finished the chapter there was a small detail that can be of great significance or can be a simple coincidence like most events which happen in this chapter. I began to notice a pattern, in both chapters when coming close to the end Oedipa is shown crying. On chapter number one Oedipa is staring at the painting with Pierce in Mexico and she begins to cry. “Oedipa, perverse, had stood in front of the painting and cried.” (pg. 11) On chapter number two after asking what Inverarity told Metzger about her she bursts in tears. “ ’What did Inverarity tell you about me’ she asked finally. ’That you wouldn’t be easy. ’ She began to cry.” (pg. 30)

The Crying of Lot 49 (Chapter 1)

Mocking the Worlds Reality

After reading the first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 I realized the novel had no true meaning, Pynchon was writing a tangled story through which he truly intended to mock and ridicule the typical life of a housewife during the twentieth century. In the novel he uses complex vocabulary and his sentences are not fluid, some of them being just a rattle on of unrelated ideas. He also plays a lot with language, using specific words to create irony on the characters personalities or on how they act.

At the beginning of the book we are introduced to a summer afternoon in which Oedipa, the main character, is in a Tupperware party. This allows us to interpret the fact that she didn’t work; therefore she personifies the typical lifestyle of a conventional family during the XX century, the time during which the book was published (1965). I immediately related this idea to the TV-series Desperate Housewife’s in which the lifes of four contemporary desperate housewife’s are told. Pynchon describes Oedipa as a confused and desperate housewife that is uncertain on how she will manage the fact of being the legal executer of the estate of an ex-boyfriend of hers which deceased named Pierce Inverarity. She returns home where she finds her husband, Mucho Mass, constantly whining of his job at the radio station, together they don’t seem to communicate, tolerate each other nor find a way to solve their issues.

After reading about the characters I noticed how the author makes fun of them by naming them ironically. For instance Dr. Hilarius, Oedipas shrink, is mentally unstable, he uses his patients as lab rats and experiments with drugs on them. Honestly there is nothing funny with a psychologist that manipulates his clients, but the fact that Oedipa is trying to find answers and solve personal matters by consulting him, makes it ironic and hilarious. Pynchon also uses irony by naming the lawyer Roseman which fits perfectly with his personality. On this first chapter we are informed that Roseman flirts with Oedipa and even proposes an escape with her, therefore he is sort of romantic which we can relate greatly with roses, part of his name. As a whole I believe Pynchon is trying to mock certain professions such as psychologists and lawyers. These occupations are supposed to have great prestige and be seriously taken but in the novel they do completely opposite to what is expected of them.

Another language twist comes along in Mucho Mass name as well as job, before hand he used to work at a used cars sales lot, but he couldn’t managed it any longer so he became a radio broadcaster in a radio named KCUF. If we look closely the radio name spells fuck if read backwards. Can this have any specific meaning or could it be a play on words of the author to trick us? Mucho Mass name is also a language play since it can be interpreted in two ways. One is Mucho meaning a lot and Mass meaning more, the other may mean Mass as in how much matter there is in an object. Either of this interpretations still has no specific meaning to me, maybe it will develop as I continue to read the novel. If we do an overall analysis we can see how every characters name relates to something else, maybe an ironic meaning, or perhaps just a distraction created by the author, inclusively we could relate Oedipas name with Sophocles Oedipus.

Another very interesting aspect about the novel is the relationship found between Oedipa and Pierce. As soon as she receives the letter notifying her of Pierces will she begins thinking about the television, God, drunkenness and fray tales. “Oedipa stood in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, spoke the name of God, tried to feel as drunk as possible.” (pg. 1) She suddenly began having all this memories of her relationship with Pierce and even reminded herself the last time they talked was in a three in the morning call by Pierce in which he talked in different languages and acted as someone else. Once again this comes to show the lack of communication and language barriers among people presented in the novel.

The end of the chapter was also very curious since it used Rapunzels story to demonstrate how Oedipa was feeling. The fact that she relates herself with Rapunzel makes me feel she lived an unhappy live; feeling trapped somewhere she didn’t belong, and couldn’t find a way to get out. This is a situation with which most of us can relate since we constantly find ourselves in a place where we don’t feel comfortable nor identified with and what is most difficult is letting ourselves out of those situations. Oedipa is feeling trapped in a relationship and as a desperate housewife and she feels her way out may be when a knight may come to save her, in this instance Pierce. But his death and the lack of communication become such a barrier that Rapunzels her becomes a wig and Oedipas fantasy is destroyed when Pierce falls on his ass.

The Crying of Lot 49 relates closely to Slaughterhouse-Five due to the fact that in both of these complex novels the authors are searching for an understanding of life. Both Billy Pilgrim and Oedipa Mass are confused in concern to what they want from life or their interpretations toward it, both novels I believe tell the journey of the characters searching for their identity in the world.

The Waste Land Analisis

The first time around I read the poem I frankly had no idea what it was about. I skimmed through it quickly and didn’t pay attention neither to the message nor the metaphor that was trying to come across. I immediately recurred to the title in order to have a general idea of what the poem would be about. The Waste Land, this title gave me an impression of having a depressive and hateful theme, I interpreted as being discriminatory against society and perceiving human beings as a disgraceful an useless race. Keeping this in mind I reread the poem, this time around it had a whole new meaning.
The initial stanza talked about the seasons and how Marie, the character introduced, was being affected by them, it was as if her life and the things she went through were guided by the season that was taking place, for instance:

“In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.”
(Part I, Stanza 1, Line 17-18)

This just comes to show how nature is of great influence to human beings life. In a sort of way we are controlled by nature.
On this stanza I also noticed a miserable subject since it states that April is the cruelest month, but this has a meaning behind it. During April the season of spring is taking place and it is during this season that flowers begin to grow, animals breed and animals are born, indeed it is a season characterized by life and the rebirth of beings living on earth. So why is it that the narrator finds April to be a cruel month? To me it can only mean that she detests life and the creatures that make part of it. It is so depressing how such a beautiful creation can seem to be to someone something so shameful.
Along the lines of this stanza I found a statement that seemed to me something completely contradictory and out of place: “Winter kept us warm…” (Part I, Stanza I, Line 5) Winter is the time of the year when the temperature hits its lowest, snow falls and the weather becomes chilly, so how come the narrator is stating that winter kept them warm? As I read the next line I somehow interpreted along the idea of hating life, that the narrator felt that snow covered the earth, it was sort of her own way of construing that snow covered all that was dreadful, to her meaning earth, thus everything seemed as if it had gone away and she was left to feel the warmth portrayed as something calm and serene. This stanza as a whole talks about Marie spending time with a significant other; they talked, drank coffee and even conversed about their childhood memories. It is a passage in which even though abhorrence towards the world is introduced, beautiful and romantic imagery is still present which I’m sensing won’t be found in the rest of the poem.
The second stanza goes about a whole different scenario in which I predict Marie is not the character, but a soldier or someone who witnessed human destruction and war, maybe Marie’s significant other. This narrator feels lonely and lost, walking among rubbish he refers to humans as “…Son of men” (Part I, Stanza 2, Line 2) and acknowledges that they will never understand the vast destruction of civilizations were no hope is left.

“And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water…” (Part I, Stanza 2, Line 23-24)

He is referring to a state of absolute disillusion, after witnessing human devastation, were no hope is left and you are protected by nothing, but still the narrator tries to point out there is always some sort of faith remaining in your mind:

“There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;” (Part I, Stanza 2, Line 25-29)

I understand this passage as a leap of faith, as the soldier continues to stride along the field, tiered after war, with no shelter, water nor relief, he sights a rock which will give him shelter for a while this reflect that even though we sometimes feel like there is no door out and that we have fallen lower than anybody, there is always, even if it is minimum, a way to get up on our feet.
The third stanza I couldn’t decipher so clearly, I just recognize it talked about a fortune teller that read the cards, she was reading them to someone which would soon face death himself or that someone close to him had deceased. I don’t quite get what this has to do with the rest of The Waste Land, could they be basing this stanzas idea on the concept of death and how tragic it is?
Lastly the forth stanza I believe talks about resentment towards war and its effects. It initiates with a depressive mood by stating how the London Bridge was covered under the brown fog of winter, the narrator indeed affirm s that “I had not thought death had undone so many.” (Part I, Stanza 4, Line 63)When he comes across someone he knew, instead of correctly asking him about how his flowers had grown, he remarks,

“That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?” (Part I, Stanza 4, Line 72-73)

In effect the narrator has been traumatized by war and death to such a degree that his ordinary life is affected by it. He doesn’t think straightly but rather conveys everything by means of death and anger.

The second part of The Waste Land begins off by talking about a woman. This woman I perceive is very wealthy and material wise has everything she desires. She is a rich, extremely groomed woman surrounded by fine furniture.

“Reflecting light upon the table as
The glitter of her jewels rose to meet it,
From satin cases poured in rich profusion;” (Part II, Stanza 1, Line 83-85)

She is so wealthy and posses everything she wishes, but otherwise this woman is completely lacking on her emotional side. Contrasting to everything she owns material wise, she is completely deficient on feelings and emotional fulfillment.
On the end of this stanza it becomes night, and the women’s house is lighted by candles and a fire place. Above the fire place frame lies a dolphin which I believe represents the lack of freedom this woman feels. A dolphin is supposed to be liberated and at no cost be able to swim with freedom in the ocean, on this poem the dolphin is: “…sad light carvèd dolphin swam.” (Part II, Stanza 1, Line 96) Meaning the dolphin is stuck always above the fire place, swimming among the flames. As I read on I came upon Philomel which I knew had extreme significance to the stanza, and since I didn’t know what it mean I searched on line and came to find this was a girl which was raped by her brother-in-law which latter cut her tongue off so that she couldn’t tell anybody, all that she could pronounce was jug-jug. I interpret this as the inability of the woman to express her emotions or even her incapability to admit her loneliness and grief by being overcome with materialistic things.
The lines that continue can’t be considered stanzas since they are thrown in randomly and in no specific order. I believe they are placed in that way to emphasize on the idea that is being communicated through them. This idea consists of the women talking to her lover on how unsatisfied she is with him, she considers they don’t communicate well, thus her partner never tells her what he is thinking or doing:

“My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.
What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
I never know what you are thinking. Think.” (Part II, Stanza 3, Line 1-4)

The ideas thrown are disorganized and random, the women is speaking intensely, angry and disappointed, thus reflecting her loneliness.
The last stanza on this second part talks about two completely distinct women from the one mentioned above. The circumstances take place in a bar that is about to close which we derive from the constant interruptions along the stanza “HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME”
(Part II, Stanza 5, Line 152) These two women are talking about Lil and her husband Albert which will soon return home. One of them, I presume to be Mary, is telling the other which I deduce is Lil, to straighten up and look more beautifully, starting off by getting a pair of teeth, or else when returning, her husband would leave her and find someone else which could satisfy him. Resentful of hearing this comment, Lil answers she has been taking certain pills to prevent her from becoming pregnant since she has already five kids and initially didn’t want any. These pills are what have been causing Lil to age so rapidly when actually she is only thirty-one. Finally Albert returns and they all go to dinner, but what surprised me about this stanza is its rhythmic ending, as the three characters say goodbye:

“Goodnight Bill. Goodnight Lou. Goodnight May. Goodnight.
Ta ta. Goodnight. Goodnight.
Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night.”
(Part II, Stanza 5, Line 170-172)

Epictetus Entry (Sections 31-53)

As I continued reading the restrictions imparted by the Stoic philosophy I came against an additional few which woke my interest. Among these I found very practical the idea to “Set up right now a certain character and pattern for yourself which you will preserve when you are by yourself and when you are with people.” (pg. 22) I deduce by this that we are supposed to be ourselves in all possible conditions and situations. Meaning that regardless of whom we are surrounded with, the places that we are found in, or the circumstances that are occurring, we are presumed to behave as we usually do, and act accordingly to our personal morals. Consequently on no account must we speak excessively, nor shall we rattle about shallow matters (sleeping, eating, drinking), but if doing so, we ought to avoid criticizing, comparing or blaming anything or else anyone. We must be discrete about any matter, and speak of it simply when essential. For the most importance, we must never converse profoundly when found among strangers nor must we act unrestrainedly since, “…if the appropriate occasion arises, take great care not to slide into their ways, since certainly if a person’s companion is dirty the person who spends time with him, even if he happens to be clean, is bound to become dirty too.” (pg. 23) Thus we should always be aware of the people we hang out with, since even if we realize their dire influence on us, we can be fooled and fall into their deceitful ways. Nevertheless we should never boast about our abstinence of these vices, if we desist from them, nor shall we judge those not capable of resisting them.

An additional suggestion mentioned in the Handbook of Epictetus consists that “Whenever you encounter some kind of apparent pleasure, be on guard, as in the case of other appearances, not to be carried away by it…” (pg. 24) Thus this means that appearances frequently trick humans into falling for superficial and insignificant matters. Even though we live in a world surrounded by appearances, we must gain knowledge of how to control them and not be carried away by them. We must learn to realize the differences between what those appearances represent to what they really stand for, therefore, “…bring before your mind two times, both the time when you enjoy the pleasure and the time after enjoying it you later regret it and berate yourself…” (pg. 24) Representing the idea of thinking before acting, no matter how big the temptation is, you should always stand firmly to your believes and fight the lure of appearances.

Along this section of Epictetus I found a pair of sentences which came to my notice: “When you do something that you determine is to be done, never try not to be seen doing it, even if most people are likely to think something bad about it.” (pg. 24) I entirely agree with this statement due to the fact that more than a few times we are influenced by the opinions of others, and we stop pursuing our own dreams just by the thought of being unconstructively judged. However we mustn’t let this fact bring us down, given that if we are proud of what we’re doing, people’s opinions become trivial. Nonetheless, “If you are not doing it rightly, avoid the act itself; if you are doing it rightly, why do you fear those who will criticize you wrongly?” (pg. 24)

Since the moment we are born we are told what is right and wrong and are brought up in a way in which we grow, mature and acquire what most consider the worries of everyday life. If we are destined to live our lives to their very potential, we owe it to ourselves and our creator to question all that which we have come to know and do. It is through this that the Handbook of Epictetus offers some knowledge in areas of personal apprehensions, how they affect our lives and the manner to confront and handle them.

Epictetus Entry (Sections 16-30)

Through experiences that are usually either positive or negative depending on their direct effect on us, we are always changing. Early on in life we become aware of this assurance and learn to accept it on some levels. But as human nature unsurprisingly is, we are determined to be in full control of our environment and ourselves at all times. To prevent taking this negative and destructive direction, Epictetus thrusts on us a couple or rules we must follow to never be disappointed. Among them we can find to “remember you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be…” (pg.16) Meaning you are born into something, whether it’s being a tramp, a heiress, or a private citizen among many categories, but the importance lies on what you make of yourself. There are some of us that are born into greatness, while others have to work excessively to get to it; what’s important is the effort and journey that takes us from what we are born into, to what we become. Resuming, “what is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else.” (pg. 16)

An additional significant rule is to “…not be weighted down by the consideration, I shall live without any honor, everywhere a nobody! ”(pg.17) Implicating that we are constantly put down by the fact of lacking honors, but what are actually honors? Who has the right to grant them? There is no such thing as a nobody, but someone who chooses to be one. An honor is a superficial statement, like the handbook states “ it is not your task to gain political office or be invited to a banquet…” (pg. 17) The honors that truly matter are the qualities that we posses, those I believe are the honors by which people should be considered a someone, and as Epictetus states,: “…be a somebody only in thing that are up to you…” (pg.17) I interpret this, as stepping up, when necessary, standing out when you can, and being a somebody when it matters and counts.

A different regulation set on the handbook consists in “If these things are good, you should be glad that he has got them. If they are bad, do not be angry that you did not get them. And remember, you cannot demand an equal share if you did not do the same things…” (pg. 18) This entire phrase is teaching a lesson about jealousy and selfishness. We relentlessly feel envy when someone is granted something we desire, but don’t have; we feel greed when we don’t get something and we are egotistic when we feel we deserve something and don’t have it. Therefore we must analyze how self-centered we are being and understand that goods happen to those who work for them and that well-being comes to those who deserve it. At the end equality reigns, and those who worked for it will get it.

The last parameter that called my attention from this section of the handbook was “For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that.” This expression immediately reminded me of Newton’s law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so as we see, as it happens in science, it does as well in human being proceedings. The phrase is trying to give us a lesson that consists on, before stepping up and doing an action, we must consider the consequences it will bring and by understanding them and accepting them if we still desire to do the certain action, we may so but confronting the cost that may come.

Along this passage there were a couple of statements, which I disagreed on, or maybe a quite didn’t understand, among this “remember that what is insulting is not the person who abuses you or hits you, but the judgment about them that they are insulting.” (pg. 16) I consider this to be false, when someone hits you or insults you, it’s not your judgment that they are insulting you, it has nothing to do with judgment.

Epictetus Entry (Sections 1-15)

As I began reading the handbook I noticed it again refers to utopia, this time regarding to how each individual can accomplish his/her personal utopia by following a set of teachings which the Stoic philosophy instructs. In other words it’s a handbook to “dispense practical advice to people on how to live their lives…” (Introduction 1) The teachings state, the best possible condition for a human being is to:

“Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and
your life will go well.” (Introduction 2)

I believe this statement may be to a certain extent right, if you have low expectations or none at all, then nothing will disappoint you. For instance when not expecting an event to be amusing, arriving to it and having a great time you can only be content about how things turned off, and when having a terrible time you will not be disappointed. In order to accomplish this you must take things as they come and not expect them in advance. On the other hand it is practically impossible not to become deluded by an idea. We as human beings have prospects on how things will turn out; if it weren’t to be like that then everything would become monotonous. I believe we must be disappointed at times to also feel satisfied at others. We constantly come across moments in which we await something so anxiously and when we actually live through it, we are frequently disillusioned since it’s not what we imagine it would be, but we have to go through it to undergo the contrast of enjoying something and hating something.

The author also talks about achieving an ideal state by “satisfying all of one’s desires…” but “a human being is by nature unable to do this, both because ones powers are so limited…” (Introduction 2) I completely agree with this statement, an individual will always have goals and try to fulfill them along their life span, when doing so a new goal will come up to mind. Therefore a person is never entirely satisfied and will have continuous desires to carry out.

All of these philosophies seem really simple when just talking about them, but the question lies on how to put oneself into such a state? According to the text we must realize “all events, at least in the external world, are completely determined by prior states of the universe as a whole.” (Introduction 3) Stoics viewed the world as something organized and planned ahead. This made me think about destiny, is our life really based on destiny? Can’t we change what lies ahead of us? Is there really a pattern in nature that defines how our lives will develop?

I then began reading the set of rules imposed by the Stoics, which one must follow to reach a complete lack of dissatisfaction. Among them I agreed with “some things are up to us and some are not up to us.” (pg. 11) I consider there are things under our control that no matter how hard they are to keep managed we are capable of handling them, while there are other things far from our control, that no matter how hard we try to dominate them, we can’t. What is so hard and what challenges most of humanity based on this regiment is accepting the fact we can’t control everything about our surroundings.

Another rule with which I am in complete accordance is, “When you are about to undertake some action, remind yourself what sort of action it is.” (pg. 12) We as humans tend to act impulsively and not think twice about what we are to do, therefore we sometimes end up in troublesome situation in which we didn’t intend to end up and just did so because of being rash. If we do consider our actions before taking them we can save ourselves from a lot of regretful experiences and if doing them, be prepared for whatever they may come with.

Lastly I definitely agree that “What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about things.” (pg. 13) For instance death, society has placed a burden in the sense off describing the decease of a person as a terrible event, but actually what do they know about it? Is death really terrible? Will actually never know that until going through it, but in the mean while we can say it’s based on people’s judgment. If they looked at it as a normal, natural and freeing experience, when a person past away they wouldn’t feel the resentment or anger they do. After reading this passage I got really interested in Stoic philosophy and how it analyses life, and is always looking for the ideal condition of a human being.

Reading Blog Entry (Chapters # 9-10)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter # 9-10 (pgs. 182-215)

As we get closer to the end of the novel, lots of questions begin to be answered and the details from the beginning of the novel commence to be explained. For instance on chapter nine we are told about Valencia’s death. She was driving towards the hospital agitated after hearing news from the plane crash and concerned that her husband would remain in a vegetable state because of it. She unfortunately passed the turn-off and hit the brakes suddenly causing the Mercedes driving behind her to crash into her car. “Nobody was hurt, thank God, because both drivers were wearing seatbelts. Thank God, thank God.” (pg. 182) Here is a visible example of how Vonnegut mocks Christianity. After hearing his interview we learned that he grew up in an atheist family in which he was raised to believe in no God, but in destiny. When emphasizing on “thank God” we realize he is saying it sarcastically, he doesn’t really think that it is due to God that nobody was hurt, it was because of the fact that they were both wearing seatbelts.

After hitting the Mercedes, Valencia desperately screams out to the other driver what was going on and puts her car on gear then drives off. The accident had caused the Mercedes to lose a headlight only “But the rear end of the Cadillac was a body-and-fender mans wet dream. The trunk and fenders were collapsed. The gaping trunk looked like the mouth of a village idiot who was explaining that he didn’t know anything about anything.” (pg. 182) This description of the accident amazed me, how come he was relating the state of a car after a crash with a man’s wet dream? What do they have in common? Does this have a humorous purpose? When Valencia reaches the hospital her head falls against the steering wheel, and an hour later is declared dead because of carbon dioxide asphyxiation.

Meanwhile “Billy knew nothing about it. He dreamed on, and traveled in time and so forth.” (pg. 183) Next to him was bunking Bertram C. Rumdfoord which had broken his leg while skiing with his wife. He was bored to death about Billy since he said: “All he does in his sleep is quit and surrender and apologize and asked to be left alone. (pg. 184) Throughout this statement a new prediction of Billy’s state came to my mind. I believe Billy had been dreaming everything, since he was surrounded by Rumford which was reading about Dresden, maybe in his subconscious mind he created a world in which he could escape reality and live how he really desired: surrounded only by content moments. He was not actually time traveling to the war, he was just being remembered of it. Later on they mention that, “There was a talk about performing an operation on him later, one which might improve the circulation of the blood in his brain.” (pg. 190) This added up to my theory that it was all in his mind, he had been in a coma and his brain had suffered injuries, besides he lived life unhappily beforehand therefore it was his intuitive that unconsciously led him to create his individualistic utopia in his head. It can be all proven in a statement such as: “Actually Billy’s outward listlessness was a screen. The listlessness concealed a mind which was fizzing and flashing thrillingly. It was preparing letters and lectures about the flying saucers, the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time.” (pg. 190)

Billy then “time traveled” again, this time to two days after Second World War II had ended. He was riding along with five other American prisoners, back to the slaughterhouse to collect souvenirs, in a wagon driven by two horses. “Billy sat in the back of the jiggling coffin. His head was tilted back and his nostrils were flaring. He was happy.” (pg. 194) Was Billy finally happy due to the fact that war had ended? Why would he be happy in a moment after so much destruction had taken place? Did he finally feel worry free, and safe? Was pain and violence finally over? Off course that wasn’t the case, as they continued their ride they had a brief stop in which a German couple noticed that the horses pulling the wagon were full of blisters and had bleeding mouths because of the broken hooves. “When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in the war.” (pg. 197) Why did Billy burst into tears now? Before hand he had seen people suffering and being tortured, but what did the horses remind him off? Perhaps he realized that writing an anti-war book as the author states is impossible. For instance in this case, the war was over, but suffering still prevailed and misunderstandings and disagreements would lead to more wars. These was later reinforced when Billy returns to New York and all he sees are books about fucking, burglary and murder, news about power, sports and death bookstores in which porn was provided. Finally Billy grabs a book he found from Trout and realizes he had already read it, it was about two people sequestered by aliens and taken to another plant. Another book talked about a time machine and a magazine had the name Montana Wildhack written on it. This just comes to show how crazy Billy was; he had taken aspects from his everyday life and created a new world inside his head that satisfied his desires.

I then read a little biographical piece on Kurt Vonnegut presented by Time in partnership with CNN and I came to understand many aspects of life that Vonnegut related to Billy. Even though in the novel he does not present himself as the main character and tends to appear in random scenes, both Billy and Kurt went through very similar things throughout their lives. Among them I can include enlisting in the army while WWII took place, captured in the Battle of Bulge, being prisoners of war, and that they both survive bombing by hiding in a slaughterhouse among others. One specific trait that stood out was both the character and the author’s lack of interest in life. Vonnegut despises the human race and its vices and indeed tried to commit suicide ounce, Billy as well doesn’t enjoy being alive and takes everything for granted. Finally I could say this article gave me a concrete answer to the “So it goes” that constantly appeared and that I continually questioned. “"So it goes" is a phrase from Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five. It's an expression the Tralfamadorians — a race of four-dimensional aliens — repeat whenever somebody or something dies. It expresses a certain airy resignation about the inevitability of death.”(Lev Grossman)

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #7-8)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapters # 7-8 (pgs. 154-181)

When reading this chapter I had the opportunity to answer a lot of the questions I was wondering about and also had the chance to understand and interpret Billy’s time traveling in a way in which it made sense and there was logic behind it. In the beginning of the chapter we are taken 25 years after he visits Dresden, to an instant when he is boarding the plane with his father-in-law and saying goodbye to Valencia. Billy mentions: “He knew it was going to crash, but he didn’t want to make a fool of himself by saying so.” (pg. 154) How could he possibly know the plane was going to crash and do nothing about it? What could he be ashamed off? He could at least have saved a couple of people, including his father-in-law. This made me think that maybe it isn’t the case that Billy can’t change the future; it is that he doesn’t want to change it.

During this passage I also noticed how Lionel Merble is referred to as a machine. “Tralfamadorians, of course, say that every creature and planet in the Universe is a machine. It amuses them that so many Earthlings are offended by the idea of being machines.” (pg. 154) Clearly I’m insulted by the idea of being called a machine due to the fact that I consider machines to be something managed by others, controlled by a superior power and unable to act coherently without orders, in other words they do as their told. We as humans refuse to accept being seen as object and the fact that we can be managed so easily.

Due to Billy’s lack of interest in saving the passengers, they board the plane along with a barbershop quartet that begins to sing Lionel Merbles favorite song after his request. What shocks me is the content of the song:

“In my prison cell I sit,
With my britches full of shit,
And my balls are bouncing gently on the floor.
And I see the bloody snag
When she bit me in the bag,
Oh, I’ll never fuck a Polack anymore.” (pg. 155)

What could the context mean? As we can see it contains revolting words and most importantly a repulsive message with no significant meaning whatsoever. I believe this are the phrases to which the interviewer asks Vonnegut, referring them to be rude and with sexual content. They are meaningless, and could be taken out of the novel without affecting it.

The quartet then sang another melody, and “Billy, knowing the plane was going to crash pretty soon, closed his eyes, and traveled in time back to 1944.” (pg. 156) This phrase made me think about a theory, could it be possible that Billy could choose, when to time travel? How come when he closed his eyes he switched places? This also led me to think that maybe all that Billy was going through was a sum of various dreams, when we come to think about it we can see that there are various times when he time travels that he is in a place where he could probably fall asleep. For instance in previous chapters when being exhausted in a war field, working on a patient in the optometry, or going to the bathroom after making love to his wife on their wedding night among others. Could this theory be just my imagination? Or I’m I actually right? Most times Billy time travels he is in circumstances in which he is tiered, or just sick of being in a specific place.

As I continued reading through chapter eight I came upon a sentence that caught my attention. “He had supposed for years that he had no secretes from himself. Here was a proof that he had a great big secret somewhere inside, and he could not imagine what it was.” (pg. 173) What does this mean? Is it possible to keep a secret from yourself? And if it were what could Billy possibly be keeping from himself? Was he denying an inedible truth? This came to make me think about Kilgore Trout and Eliot Rosewater. Eliot was a war veteran that lay next to Billy in the hospital and sort of introduced him to science fiction novels, especially to those of Kilgore Trout which Billy meets in this chapter. I’m being able to prove that Billy creates all this time travels and theories such as the Tralfamadores one in which he invents this utopia in which he can always be in the places he wants to, those which make him feel satisfyingly. In other words, Billy is trying to imitate a utopia in which he feels comfortable and enjoys every moment he finds himself, and when encountering those he dislike, he can switch places and move ounce again to those which made him feel comfortable.

Referring to Gulliver’s Travels we can say that even do this two novels were written in different times, with different settings and characters they were both trying to point out the same thing: humanity attempts at forming a utopia. As we can see they are both setting their stories with hypothetical characters and settings to mock humans. For instance on Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut creates Billy, as a character struggling to find what’s real and what’s not, and his effort to create time-traveling and the Trafamaldores theory as an excuse to live in the moments he desires to live. On the other hand On Gulliver’s Travels, Swift creates two societies, placing the yahoos (humans) as these filthy creatures that stink and are full of vices and Houyhnhnms (horses) as the perfect society. In reality we can consider the complete opposite, thus horses are the ones who stink and serve while we humans, control them and are much more civilized. But Gulliver being a yahoo is against his own race; he is disgusted by them and tries to find a home among the Houyhnhnms.

We can also compare Gulliver’s character with Howard W. Campbell Jr. due to the fact that they were both against their own race. Gulliver considered the Yahoos to be “…the most filthy, noisome, and deformed Animal which Nature ever produced, so they were the most restive and indocile, mischievous, and malicious.” (Swift, pg. 1) He despised them and didn’t want neither to live with them, nor be part of their society as well as Campbell which also backstabbed his own race. He was an American who turned into a Nazi, which tries to recruit prisoners from the slaughterhouse to fight against the Russian, American allies.

In conclusion both of these stories try to focus on the idea of idealistic utopias, as they are impossible to form. It is unattainable to create a society which everyone considers to be perfect due to the fact that we all depict perfection differently.

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #6)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter #6 (pg. 135-153

As I began reading this chapter it took no time before I came up with something that stood out from the novel. It was just the first word which came to my attention. “Listen: Billy Pilgrim says he went to Dresden, Germany on the day after his morphine night…” (pg. 136) When reading this simple sentence I noticed it started like no other, what was the narrator trying to do? Did he mean listen, as in pay attention? Could that phrase have an extremely important meaning? Otherwise, why would he emphasize on it?

Immediately we are introduced to the hospital for prisoners of war, were Billy lies next to Paul Lazzaro and Edgar Derby. Billy suddenly wakes up “But it wasn’t the cold that had awakened Billy. It was animal magnetism which was making him shiver and itch.” (pg. 136) What could this magnetism be about? Could it just be an illusion? If it were really a feeling what could it mean and were did it come from? Billy continues sensing this force until he reaches into his coat and feels two lumps on it; moreover he doesn’t reach to see what they are sensing that they could do miracles for him if he could hold his curiosity.

Moments later the man who injured Lazzaro (The Blue Fairy Godmother) entered the room, and after a few minutes of being there a discussion breaks between Paul and him. “You made a big mistake, said Lazzaro. Anybody touches me, he better kill me, or I’m gonna have him killed.” (pg. 138) The Blue Fairy Godmother answers, “There is still time for me to kill you.” (pg. 138) and leaves the room. Straight away Lazzaro goes nuts, and begins cursing. He even talks about a time in which he tortures a dog, just because it tried to bit him. He says, “It’s the sweetest thing (revenge) there is, said Lazzaro. People fuck with me, he said, and Jesus Christ are they ever fucking sorry. I laughed like hell. I don’t care if it’s a guy or a dame. If the President of the United States fucked around with me, id fix him good.” (pg. 138-139) This just comes to show the negative effects of war on people and how they grow with anger and resentment inside of them, converting them into violent people, such as with Paul.

As I continued reading I came up with something Pilgrim said which completely stunned me. He said that many years ago, “A certain man promised to have me killed. He is an old man now, living not far from here. He has read all the publicity associated with my appearance in your fair city. He is insane. Tonight he will keep his promise.” (pg. 142) I couldn’t believe that Billy knew how and when he was going to die and talked so calmly about it, he didn’t do anything regarding it. Could it be that he has began to believe in Trafalmadore theory’s and thinks death is just a moment? Or since he is so unenthusiastic about life, he could also act this way because he doesn’t care. I believe it’s my first prediction since he later states: “… and it is time for me to be dead for a little while – and then live again.” (pg. 143)

Something that also called my attention was how an Englishmen “was marking the boundary between the American and English sections of the compound. Billy and Lazzaro and Derby didn’t have to ask what the line meant. It was a familiar symbol from childhood.” (pg. 144) Why did he mean by this? Was he trying to say that racial/national differences were noticeable since they were young? Were restrictions placed on them since kids?

As well as answering several questions and being the inspiration of many more, what I consider to be very important, was that I finally understood why the book was titled the way it is. At the end we can see how they arrive to Dresden and as they are told to memorize their address in case they got lost, we can see “The address was this: Schlachthoffunf. Schlachthof meant slaughterhouse. Funf was good old five.” (pg. 153)

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #5) Third Part

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter #5 (pg. 119-136)

This section of the fifth chapter initiates describing Billy and Valencia’s honeymoon in New England and how they were spending a very romantic evening together. Suddenly while in their balcony, Valencia bursts into tears and when asked why, responds by saying she was happy, especially because she thought she would never get married, and that since she did, she would make an effort to lose weight in order to look beautiful for her husband. Instantly Billy replies “I like you just the way you are.” (pg. 120) I believe this remark was so romantic and would ordinarily come from a person who was utterly in love, but when I continued to read I came against, “He had already seen a lot of their marriage, thanks to time-travel, knew that it was going to be at least bearable all the way.” (pg. 120) At once I was astounded at how somebody could marry another person and be willing to spend the rest of his life with him/her even though he wasn’t in love, he would just do it because the marriage would be bearable. That showed me Billy’s true feelings towards Valencia, and how he was just accommodating to what came easiest, and not having to go through the trouble of searching for his soul mate. I believe it would come to be both unfair to himself and to poor Valencia which believed she had found her life partner.

As Billy and Valencia continued in their honeymoon they saw “A great motor yacht named the Scheherezade now slid past their marriage bed. The song its engines sang was a very low organ note.” (pg. 120) Here we can see ounce again the author’s use of personification by implying the engine sang, we can also see some sort of a metaphor since he compares the engines sound to a low organ note. I consider the author uses these literary devices to give more feeling to the novel, here he gets in touch with our senses. The boat continues passing by and this is when Valencia asks Billy about war. “It was a simple-minded thing for a female Earthling to do, to associate sex and glamor with war.” (pg. 121) When I read this statement I was personally confused, how could they be generalizing that we as women relate sex with war? How are this two subject related in any sense? I find this statement completely absurd, even though there could be some meaning behind it based on the historical period or perhaps in a cultural sense.

Billy constantly time-traveled between different periods, ounce when he was in the prisoners of war camp, he headed to the latrine were lots of American prisoners were excreting the food from the banquet, among these American he found a man which “…wailed that he had excreted everything but his brains. Moments later he said ¨ There they go, there they go.¨ he meant his brains. That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book.” (pg. 125) From this declaration we can tell that the author is introducing himself into part of the novel. Right away I eliminated the idea which consisted that the author was indeed Billy; even though they have similar traits we can see they are not the same person.

Ounce again Billy time travels to an instance, already shown before hand in the novel, in which Barbara, Billy’s daughter, is screaming at him believing he has gone crazy and can no longer live alone. She even replies “If you’re going to act like a child, maybe will just have to treat you like a child." (pg. 131) I can completely relate to this phrase since it is something commonly said to children when they misbehave, but that’s what’s so ironic, in the novel the daughter is saying it to the parent instead of the parent to the daughter. Does repeating this event twice in the novel mean something? When Barbara takes the ¨ mothers role ¨will Billy’s thoughts about the Tramaldorians change?

Billy then gets unstuck ounce again on time and wakes up in the Tralfamadores zoo, in which he is found naked next to Montana Whildhack, a motion picture star, also brought by the Tramaldorians for the purpose of watching this two Earthlings’ mate. “The vast crowd outside was delighted. All attendance records for the zoo were broken. Everybody on the planet wanted to see the Earthlings’ mate.” (pg. 132) Past reading this I felt compassion for Billy and Montana, they were being treated as we treat animals on earth, thrown into a cage, and encouraging mating while hundreds of spectators watched them from outside. Off course that when realizing what was going on Montana entered panic, but after a couple of days she got to know Billy and feel comfortable around him. They soon developed a loving and caring relationship which can be interpreted as true love.

As I came to the end of this chapter a comparison caught my eye, this was between a women’s body and Dresden. “The light from the single source threw the baroque detailing of Montana’s body into sharp relief. Billy was reminded of fantastic architecture in Dresden, before it was bombed. I was curious, how was it possible that a women’s body could remind him of Dresden’s architecture? What did they have in common?

Finally the chapter ended when Billy applies all of the Tramaldorians theories and tries to explain them to a small boy which has lost his father. He has learned about them and is starting to believe in them, that is why he makes them his and talks about them with liberty, “…assured the fatherless boy that his father was very much alive still in moments the boy would see again and again.” (Pg.135) Instantly the boy’s mother called the receptionist and accused Billy of being crazy.