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.