Overview from the Magnificent Castle

It is amazing how literature (and a few words) can make you laugh in such an absurd way. While reading Chapter 1-3 of How Candide Was Brought Up in a Magnificent Castle and How He Was Driven Thence by the illustrated and satirist Voltaire, I found a way of having fun while reading. A completely new feeling of curiosity and insight laugh reveals this for the first time. The following may be presented by a string of thoughts. It starts like this: a little overview of the first chapter, wow… I hope I never get as fat as My Lady Baroness. Just by the name of the landlord I can infer it is the direct target. The satire will be against him and the wealthy aristocrats. Though, why was the Westphalia region chosen? What is so amazing of having windows? (hope it is satire) Let’s start with the title the beginning of each piece of paper. Where might Candide be taken to? In any case I believe it is enough of this nonsense and better start to analyze and question the thoughts of this famous author.

On chapter one, Voltarie is inmediatly directed to the personality of the main character, Candide. As the reflection of his youth, his "face is a true index of his mind". The reader can suppose his mind is not very mature, but simple and childish. Starting with the facts of his origin, the most interesting one is the gossip from the servants. Similar to a mexican novel, having the protagonist coming from a past with different information from other sources. Having the protagonist absent to reveal his own cruel past. It is attracting the voice of the narrator, how simple, naive and absurd it sounds. For instance, "for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows." Somehow expecting the reader to find surprise in this fact, which it is quite absurd. The reader might think that in every building there must be windows. Maybe in that moment it wasn't so usual to have windows in castles, though I doubt it. I didn't get the last sentence, "and he never told a story but everyone laughed at it." The word that does not make sense is "...but". This word confuses the grammar of the sentence. Placing the orator in another context that the one the audience is in. Is Pangloss, the oracle of the family whom Candide listens as a child, the son of the Baron? There is no link in this paragraph to relate Pangloss with the daughter of My Lady Baroness. Actually the fact of being siblings may bring the answer to this hidden link. The next paragraph quickly overviews the absurdity of lessons Panloss teaches Candide. I am certain that the personality of Candide will not grow much in knowledge.

From hearing the lessons how did Miss Cunegund pop out of nowhere? I guess she is the Baronesses' seventeen year-old daughter, though it does not state anything about it. What was Doctor Pangloss thinking by teaching the Baronesses' chambermaid in the middle of the 'park'? It is funny the romantic story of Candide and Miss Cunegund. Specially when they get caught by the Baron. Why on earth would she faint for such a silly situation? Anyhow it is here where the theory of cause and effect takes place. Candide kisses Miss Cunegund and effectively he is kicked out of the Magnificent Castle in Westphalia.

While reading the second chapter of Candide, I realized how Voltaire uses his brains to combine philosophical ideas with comedy. Getting into detail the philosophical ideas can be described as the free will. "and he determined, in virtue of that divine gift called free will, to run the gaunlet six and thirty times." Recalling chapter one, another idea was that everything is best, not right. Everything fits with everything, like the nose for spectacles. However, glasses were made according to the nose, not vice-versa, as Voltaire declares. What is the punishment of running the gauntlet six and thirty times? The scene I understood reminded me of the biblic situation of Jesus Christ being stroked to save humanity. What was Candide punished for? At the end the protagonist couldn't die, basically I infer his revolutionary ideas saved him.

Relating punishment to the ideas from Dantes, it is different. There is no poetical justice, on the contrary there is no reason for being ruled over by a pair of bulgarian guys. Moreover, Candide was handcuffed, and sent to a dungeon for no valid reason. Possibly it is a resemblance of humanity fighting for freedom or social inequality.

Finally the third chapter is marked by blood and gruesome images of death. Escaping this, as Vonnegut intended, Candide continues his search of acerting the ideas Master Pangloss taught him. Resuming this in the following quote, "I conceive there can be no effect without a cause;everything is necessarily concatenated and arranged for the best."

Me, Myself and I: The Only Things You have to Worry About

About the Handbook, a guide to life, one could say that it defines the only way to be in peace with one self and consequently with others. It is the simplified version of the set of clues to remind you of things that will help you in how to live a happy life. I find this piece of antique literature so advanced for the time period it was written on. Besides it is already incredible enough to find so many cases where the ideas of this particular handbook apply to. In a mere conclusion this piece of paper is amazing in all aspects. From the first section until the fifteenth it describes with such simplicity and accuracy the best ways to solve conflicts in order to be happy. Although this is so great I disagree with one of the examples to explain the first section in the handbook. It may have not been well translated, but I think that the reputation one has is because of the actions you have taken. So in the end it is up to us to win the reputation of ourselves in society. Even though the text is clear, it is funny how at the end of the first section a conclusion has the impression of being popped out of nowhere. This may happen because the reader looses the string of thoughts the writer has written. While I read the passage, I questioned myself constantly of how to know when some things are up to me and when is it not, or what is the time-being to postpone things and when is it too late. The doubt of being capable of recognizing what is the right time to do things is always fluttering over my head.
“You are an appearance” relating this quote with Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, it resembles the appearance of dead people. Who which are not dead, but seem to be. “When a Trafalmadorian sees a corpse all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment.”
I don’t quite understand the point of the third section of the Handbook. What is the use of kissing or naming something you are fond of? For instance what would be the use of kissing the milk just before it spills?
The fourth section is explicitly confusing; I suppose that it simply means that if you make a decision, accept the consequences of your actions and be happy.
I am happy simply for the fact of entering and tabbing each paragraph, so I am following the selfishness this passage proposes.
I believe that the fifth section is exceptionally popular because it even happens to me. Actually, it happens all the time, resulting easy to fall on this kind of suffering. People get upset for their own judgments of things and events. Learning from this fragment I will aim to achieve complete education so I don’t blame myself or others for getting upset. Besides it is so common to get upset for such silly things, that it is even difficult to get out of the frustration of being upset. Although I am not a person that frequently gets mad, I feel it is harder to get out of it than getting into the feeling of anger.
Getting happy about the superiority of something or someone else is so commonly confused with true happiness that it is funny. Including the fact that even egocentric people fall into this falsity because it is “theirs”. For instance “my bag is amazing”, what you are saying is that the bag is amazing, not you for possessing it. It is interesting that it happens so often, and we feel good about the comment.
What might the boat represent? The voyage? The captain calling? It is clear that the wife and the child are the shellfish and the vegetable, which by the way are left behind and used only for the man’s own pleasure. But the question still remains, might this saying be called from an antique way of representation we have assumed mistakenly? What I infer from this section is that family is only used for the man to take advantage of, but still it has to follow the voyage of life, without looking back. It is extremely egocentric, seeking for the happiness of only one human being, you. The happiness of others is their problem. Although the technique could work, if every single soul is fond of itself, everybody would be happy.
I believe that if you have made a hundred percent effort for something to happen, and results a completely different thing, it must be really frustrating. However the handbook suggests simply wanting things to happen as they do happen, it never mentions effort from anybody.
Simply trust your abilities to confront hardship. One of those you might be looking for first is self-control, then endurance and finally patience. Getting used to this might be hard, but it will create a confident self who will not be taken away be appearances. So in other words the only real person in the world is you.
Whatever is given to you it is not yours. Every section revolves around the idea of what is yours, what you are concerned about, what should or shouldn’t be perceived in a certain point of view. This point of view this handbook is trying to teach is individuality, selfishness and anything related to your own happiness.
“Nothing comes for free.” Even getting upset has a price. In this section a specific example is given, which involves stealing wine and spilled oil, very traditional in Greek customs. So in order to progress paying a price for tranquility is essential for your happiness. Having the slave boy as the example explains that these theories of stoicism were more influential in the upper classes of the Graeco-Roman world.
In the last sections of the Handbook, the search for progress is the main theme of the ideas, without discarding the idea of your own happiness. Reputation shows an important role in the society of this moment, since Epictetus mentions what people think about you. Actually suggests a very peculiar thing; make others think you are a mindless fool. How on earth will this help? Basically what most people suffer for is their reputation amongst their society, getting to be the most important factor of preoccupation. Why might the translator only use the word “upset”? Le mot just is essential to make this piece interesting. But this would unnecessarily confuse the audience, so using basic terminology might be a better choice.
Nothing lives forever, it is necessary to accept the loss of the ones you need to be happy. You want things that you don’t have, you want the eternal existence of your family and friends, and finally you don’t want to fail getting your desires so the only thing in your power is to let it be.
From the last passage I believe that opportunities come in the way food comes in a banquet. So I conclude from the idea of the last fifteen sections that the only things that matter are Me, Myself and I. Consequently I deduce that food makes me happy, if it makes others unhappy, it is not my business. It is a good idea to receive whatever the "giver" gives you, but treat as if it was not your property. Besides I have to pay a price for my own happiness, food that feed this happiness. But watch out, I may confuse it with true happiness by mentioning the superiority of the product I am eating and being satisfied with it.

Ending the Nightmare

The novel is finalized with the typical world war movie ending, freedom. In representation a bird asks him, “Poo-tee-weet?” Actually it had already been mentioned at the beginning of the story of Billy Pilgrim. Like a circle, a never ending cycle. So it goes. People will keep looking dead, though Vonnegut never mentions reincarnation. So, what happens to the dead?
In the article about Vonnegut’s death, it is clear that only after death a person is recognized for his works. Every good novel and details from his creation were displayed in this TIME article. What for if he is already dead? “So it goes.” And nobody can do anything about it.
I find the first small paragraph quite confusing. I keep asking myself what is that Kurt Vonnegut never did and what did he do for too long. The author of the article does not give any clue about this argument. However the author makes an attempt to support this idea with a quote from this passed away celebrity. I believe that this quote does not fit in the paragraph or sustain the main idea of the article. The reader can ask itself, it is humorous, but what is its purpose? The reader can suppose it is the essence of this character reflected on this sole quote about his death. There are various factors that hide its functional use. For instance the fact that it is a citation that expresses black humor entertains the reader. Although it is not very intelligent what he said because he passed on. By the way it is not mentioned why he died. What kind of death is caused by injuries suffered in a fall? It creates an air of doubt in reliability of the source. He could have actually passed away because of lung cancer, a very common disease in smokers.
The information given by this article about Vonnegut mother’s death suggest that she committed suicide as a consequence of being an unsuccessful writer. I suppose that this is how Vonnegut received the genes of an untalented and depressed writer.
It is certain that this author did not get to meet Vonnegut himself, but simply read the summary of the novel Slaughterhouse-Five on Wikipedia. From this piece of literature the author based the whole article. Besides, extra commentaries from Vonnegut were recollected from the Rolling Stone Magazine. It is easy to assure that the information was recollected on a rainy Sunday while finding no other productive thing to do.
To end this article the author chose such a strange and mysterious quotation from Cat’s Cradle, novel from Vonnegut which reinstates the emptiness of life. Emphasizing the point of view about life in Vonnegut’s eyes. He whose eyes were shut from the magic of life. In his perspective, finally ending the nightmare.

Persecution

thursday 154-182
The crash of the airplane where Billy and his father-in-law traveled on was a crucial event in the story. It is like when the wolf finds little red riding hood. This event can be taken in depth by the idea of demise persecuting Billy Pilgrim. Like in the film from 1957 The Seventh Seal, the first scene is marked by death and the allegory of itself. As the main character, Death runs after Antonius Block without the possibility of avoiding its results. Time traveling also chases Billy, who doesn’t have the power of changing his past, neither the present nor the future. With some factors which make suspense happen, indicate that death is near. For instance the lights of Dresden shut down, because of the possibility of bombers attacking. The author makes a comparison with what an amazing event could be such a daily action as the city lights turning on one by one, reflected on the Elbe River.

Death appears once again with the commentary made by the kitchen war widow.
“All the real soldiers are dead.”
For instance this can be the main theme of the motion picture released in 1972 based on this novel. In any case everything and everybody revolves around death and birth. Nothing to do about it, there is even more stress in a war which considers such brutality.

Another example of persecution by Death is the story of Professor Isak Borg in the movie Wild Strawberries released in 1957 directed by Ingmar Bergman, the same director as Tthe Seventh Seal. Getting to remind things from the past in base with the events of the present trip he makes with his daughter-in-law. Regreting, and wanting to change his past just before his death. It is interesting that many movies refer to death as a way of enslaving humans to enjoy life on real world. For instance the recently released film The Bucket List directed by Rob Reiner. Having escaped from a cancer, two men are headed on a road trip with a list to-do. Still having limited one year life-time and diagnosed with a terminal illness they intend to make their last chess game with Death.

Good against Evil

Tuesday 136-153
Listen: it would be nice to hear the author, and probably argue with him about his points of view. Especially discuss about the point where he emphasizes the theme of goodness against malice used with characters and events. Actually it reminds me of the film The Passion of the Christ where at the end the death of Jesus marks the evil-possessed hearts of humanity and the triumph of evil over sanctity. It is clearly stated when the people of Rome vote for more of the torture penalty laid upon Jesus of Nazareth. Even though this was meant to be, so at the final decision it was good who won evil by pardoning all humanities’ wrongdoings with the death of Christ.

Paul Lazzaro is the style of character psychologically hurt since the beginning of his youth. Creating traumas and making his cruel side appear. This trauma may be caused by his size and consequently socially rejected. The usual case is to be rejected by society for being different, so this personage has to defend his own self, something Billy did not do. For instance the horrible trick Lazzaro made on the dog, Billy cannot even hurt a fly. Or another point of view can be described as the seducing power of sweet vengeance taking over the character of Lazzaro, who has probably been psychologically hurt in his childhood.

On February thirteenth of 1976, Billy Pilgrim is, had and will die. It will be the triumph of evil over goodness. Lazzaro, insane and keeping his promise will shoot Billy, he says. It is clearly evident of Billy’s insanity, for instance the prediction about the division of the United States of America into twenty nations, following the idea of the US Balkanized. Although both are loosing their minds, Lazzaro has permitted his wicked side appear, while Billy has not even discovered this side yet. This refers to the polemic question, are some people born for the only purpose of being evil?

Although the death of Billy Pilgrim is not as impactating as Chirst's, who changed the rules of nature, in Billy's point of view they will only experience death for a while, as stated by Trafalmadorians.