Section 2- Invisible Cities

One thing that struck me from the very beginning of the second part was the way the author rewrote a sentence so that it could keep the same meaning but be expressed in several different ways. I could try to find evidence that maybe some of the material mentioned in the second section can be rewritten so that the reader can have a different perspective on the same city. They would have to be very personal interpretations of what the author could also be trying to portray through each part but this would be a very hard thing to investigate specifically. I do think that he may be trying to encourage his readers to open their minds to other possibilities that these descriptions of cities could be hiding and the results would be intriguing, though hard to find. This would take a very deep analysis of each part of the section to see whether I can derive a parallel to a city or description.

Section 1- Invisible Cities

One possible idea that I got from section one of "Invisible Cities" exploring form versus content. I found that Italo Calvino's work is very precise and full of very interesting imagery and maybe I could compare his interesting writing style with the content and see if they match or whether he emphasizes one more than the other. Since his work is clearly fictional it would be interesting to explore how realistic he tries to make his cities or if he wants his readers to know that there is no such city. I could analyze the reasons for remebering different parts of the cities for example how in one part he writes only about signs and another only about desires etc. I think that that is one very creative way of making form reflect content.

Voyage Act II

One thing that struck me from the very beginning of Act II was that the author goes back in time and add a side to each event. We now get to see things that were only mentioned in passing previously, in depth. I found it interesting to learn of what Michael and his liberal friends had been up to during his absence in the house and I think that Stoppard changed so that there would be a different location for the new act. The Second act seemed like a revision of the first act but from a different angle so that we get to know new characters and situations or what really happens. The change in each character's personality becomes more evident in the second act compared to the first. Alexander becomes less and less liberal, always trying to silence his son and shunning his work. He constantly encourages Michael to switch to agriculture because it is a more accepted profession. Also in the first act the characters mentioned the Beyers but only in the second do we get to know them and their relationship to the family. At the very beginning of the first scene we see Mrs. Beyer with Liubov and Varvara but it automatically switches to men having their own conversation, I don't understand why the author included this snip of conversation between the women because it is such a small introduction.

In the first act it is made to seem like it was Michael who just arrived at his house with all of his crazy, liberal ideas but in the second act we are shown that from the very beginning before his father's disapproval emerged he was associating with those kind of people. "Ah! You noticed. Because France is the flower of civilisation, and also the home of revolution which will lop off the head of the flower." This quote, said by one of Michael's friends shows how much they want to make themselves a part of other cultures instead of the Russian one. I think that Michael associates with them because he too resents the conservative and controlling Russian government and this is what causes so much friction between him and his father. From our point of view he just seems like a very rebellious character that is just causing problems for his family and putting strange and unusual ideas into his sister's heads. In reality he was one of the only characters that was realizing the state of oppression he and his family were living in, they just accepted the facts as they were, today people would be planning a revolution in a heartbeat. The author effectively shows how oblivious the family is to the evils of the present situation but Michael and his friends see the need for change. This is a matter of time period and our opinion compared the the opinion over a century ago spurs two very different reactions but Michael is the first to try to stand up to this authoritarian, unjust society. He perseveres even though his own family even shuts him out at times, this shows how politics greatly influence relationships as well.

In the end I don't feel a sense of conclusion, the play finishes with Alexander pretending to still be able to see even though he lost his vision it seem rather inconclusive. I think that maybe Stoppard concludes with Alexander being blind because this could show how he may be blind but still think he can see, he will never let go of his ideas or perceptions on life with or without sight and he proves this with Alexander being convinced he can see the sunset. Alexander changes political positions but then becomes extremely stubborn and self absorbed and he continues to disapprove of his son. This is an example of how even with evidence some men never learn. I think that in the end the people's surroundings in the play evolve much more than they do and this may be Stoppard's way of trying to explain why Russia is still backwards in some of its ideas. It's old traditions don't die because of the people's dependence on them and they remain the same according to their past and don't let the present circumstances change or affect them. This play shows that this may make a person feel safer since they stick to the same conviction all their life but it can also be inconvenient since it causes conflict between the new and the old. The new liberalism and old conservatism is what caused big issues between the people and since they both believe they are right the issue escalates and is very difficult to solve. So Stoppard is trying to show that we have to have a balance, we don't have to become our opponent we just have to accept some of it.

Voyage Act I

The names in Voyage yet again threw me off reminding me of the trouble I had had reading Uncle Vanya and after finishing the first act I was still unclear as to some of the subjects of conversation. One thing that noticed a lot throughout the first act was the fact that no one really payed attention to the other person, there were always many random conversations going on at the same time that it was hard to figure out who was addressing who. All the characters seem to be speaking at the same time and the conversations were very broken and confusing but the play itself was very easy to read. Another confusing thing was the relationships. I was never quite sure who was in love with who because there seemed to be some love triangles and maybe even unknown crushes, the family is very disjointed in their conversations and in their actions. At the very beginning the father shows pride in his family but slowly he loses control and they begin to lost their way, Micheal with his philosophical babble and all his daughters try to search for real love. Their father believes that Michael has poisoned his daughters to think that there has to be true love in marriage and that his son in undermining his plans. Some of the traditions and ideas in the play are definitely striking like the fact that he believes that the husband should be at least twice the wife's age. The play not only exposes early life in Russia but also some interesting cultural information.

The beginning of the first act is very introductory but soon intensifies with the addition of conflict accurate to the time period. It seems to me that the family is losing it's dignity and position because of the conflict and this is why the father is so desperate to marry his daughters off to good, suitable men. "My daughters have been educated in 5 different languages" this quote sounds to me as though their father is trying to rebel or push away some of their Russian culture by teaching them to be more English and they too resent being Russian as well. Both this play and "Uncle Vanya" had characters that didn't enjoy the state that their nation was in with it being racked with corruption and conservatism though I found this play more political and Uncle Vanya more about the environment. I think that the author chose a noble family to show the change in the political environment and how it would affect them. I found it interesting that Tom Stoppard actually wrote the play on a kind of timeline so that maybe it would be easier for the audience to relate the play with the event going on at the time, time goes by very quickly in this play and it must have been very hard to show the lapses of time from one scene to the next. All the daughters get married off quickly but become less satisfied with their matches and thanks to Michael's advice try to wiggle out of their marriages.

I think that Michael could represent the liberal voice of the time because of the types of advice he gives and the people he associates with. "'March here, march there, present ares, where's your cap?', you've no idea, the whole army's obsessed with playing at soldiers..." To me this quote shows him as a liberal because he wants to do things his own way without other's control and then when he turns to all the different philosophers mentioned he tried to think and act just like them. Michael is also very fickle and changes his mind very easily because of one event or another. I think that Stoppard shows this trait in a person as undesirable since he doesn't get along well his powerful and very stubborn father. The confusingly and intertwined relationships in the play show the difference in between obligation and desire when married women fall for other men and situations of the sort but I think it may also be criticizing that way of life because eventually people try to make love prevail instead of arranged marriages but both Alexander and Varvara are too occupied to notice. The deeper Michael gets into philosophy the less his father likes him and the more in debt he becomes. Michael, instead of doing well with his newly acquired knowledge of human nature he begins to get into trouble and become a more difficult person. I think that the way Michael begins to fall apart is the author's way of showing how a man has to take what he knows and put it to good use and since Michael doesn't put it to good use he gets himself into all kinds of problems.

His sisters on the other hand are taken over by him and are always faithful while their parents' frustration grows especially because of his ever changing attitude towards life and people. Alexander in exchange becomes more conservative maybe to spite his son and his actions and out of disgust for the way he is behaving, either way when one becomes more liberal a chain reaction happens showing how the other becomes stricter. The father condemns some kinds of literature and maybe Stoppard was trying to show the state of the nation using this family as his canvas. The family has its share of tragedies to add a touch of reality to the play. I think that the author is doing a good job using the family as an analogy for something bigger making each member a component of Russia, I can only guess but I have enjoyed the play so far.

Final Reaction to Macbeth

Overall I enjoyed the play even though I sometimes had a hard time with the old vocabulary the plot was interesting and captivating. I had no experience or background knowledge of the play so I read it not expecting anything in particular and just reading along to watch the action unfold and I think that made the book more tempting to read because I was learning as I read without an opinion or and idea at all. The idea of such an insatiable hunger for power can and has occurred in real life and this need is a very big factor in corruption. This makes the play more realistic and easy to understand. I believe that in the end Macbeth got what he deserved in the play because he caused so much harm to others that it was only fair that he should lose everything too. I found it sad that he became so inflamed and so convinced that he deserved the power and that he was invincible and this made the plot less cliche since he never learns his lesson. The witches with their potions and revelations helped him truly believe that he was indestructible since only a man "not born of woman" could kill him. I think that the only things that really made him feel fear or desperation was when the apparitions began coming true. It was a great form of irony on Shakespeare's part because it was the best way to defeat the enemy. Proof of how cold blooded he had become was when his wife dies and he isn't very distressed. He became so self absorbed and cruel that I don't think any reader resented his defeat.

Shakespeare used many literary devices like paradoxes, similes, metaphors, irony and he employed them well into the action. For example a good use or paradoxes could always be found during a scene with the witches casting spells or including confusing messages. This makes his work more witty and interesting to read. I found that the fact that the bad guy gets defeated in the end was rather cliche, but it is the ending that everyone who reads or watches the play expects because it would be disappointing if he got away with his actions. The action in the story was very captivating not only was there interaction between characters but there was a lot of conflict and two parts or sides to the story. There was the Macbeth side in Scotland and Macduff's in England. Rivalry brings action and action makes a work interesting. Overall I liked the play though I had a hard time with some of the scenes and may have misinterpreted some of his lines I enjoyed reading and acting it out.

Uncle Vanya Act IV

In the final act though we are frustrated by Voinitsky's stupidity we pity him because he explains just why he lost his mind, the fact that he has worked his hands to the bone all his life and will lose everything without acknowledgement is a very hard thing to face. He did over react but people like him who don't have anything in their lives except for their work will easily lose control if their one most important thing in life is in peril. People become the exact same way if their child's or spouse's life were in danger or something of the sort. One thing that all of the people search for the most in this play is happiness, this happiness doesn't have to be overwhelming bliss, just satisfaction with their lives and their position and the moment, I found that many still are searching and I don't think that people like Serebryakov ever find that kind of peace. "To wake up on a clear, quiet morning and feel that you had begun your life anew, that all the past had been forgotten, had vanished like smoke." Most of us do wake up and see our families and look out the window and smile but to people like Voinisky this seems so impossible and so out of the ordinary that it is tragic to see how unhappy he has been his whole life. I think that his play is about the pursuit of happiness but that author makes it so that in the end the characters never are truly happy but I guess their satisfaction in there work is good enough.

The way the characters found happiness, well at least Voinitsky, Marina and Sonya, was through work and routine and even though to us that doesn't mean much this kept them distracted and cheerful. This ending reminded me of "Candide" because he too finds use and purpose when he begins to work instead of just being idle and even though this isn't much it's what kept these characters going and that I find very impressive. Even Voinitsky who was ready to give up on himself was able to distract himself with work and so they win two battles, one on boredom and the other and poverty by putting themselves to good use. "Let the go, I... I cannot. I feel miserable. I must get busy with something as soon as possible.... Work, work!" It's interesting how dependent Voinitsky was on his work but as long as it kept him sane it was a good thing. I think that Chekhov is trying to tell his audience that if you are idle like Elena and her husband you will be burdens and disliked but if you do your share in your area you will be respected so even though he isn't encouraging attempted murder he is trying to enlighten his audience to the ways of the world by telling them that without productivity you'll go nowhere in this life.

I found that the end of the play was like a new beginning for the characters left since they now had their lives back to live anew and to do things the way they wanted to without having to serve other people but like a more independent life. I wasn't able to tell how much time went by in the play but I think it was rather consistent so the Chekhov didn't skip days or hours but it was hard to tell. Though there is still some resentment till the very end of the play the return of normalcy lifted the characters spirits. I think that the play was named "Uncle Vanya" because of what a power character he is and all of the lessons we learn from him. In the play he is the one making the most mistakes but also developing and growing the most every day through his issues and I think that this makes him a very strong character, the strongest in fact, and so he is worthy of being the title of the play. Though it doesn't focus only on him he is the one who makes the most terrible errors and suffers the most so, through the author we are closest to him, I find the name very appropriate.

Uncle Vanya Act III

There are new discoveries in this chapter that stir up more excitement and questions in this act, the audience learn of Sonya's love for Astrov. Elena is told this by Sonya and she reveals her lack of self-confidence and weakness for Astrov who is not at all interested in her. Elena is placed in the difficult position of questioning him about the matter and also reporting back to Sonya the man's feelings. This shows a very strong friendship and how deeply one cares for the other since they are willing to do awkward, uncomfortable things for the other. The disappointment that Sonya feels is very real because the fact of one sided affection is a very common fact of life and happens very often. These aspects of the play are the ones that make it easily for a broad audience to relate to since any of the characters could be a regular person dealing with the same issues. "I'm not beautiful" in this quote Sonya is addressing an issue that many young women face and have faced every single day, their vanity. And, like many, she is unhappy with herself especially because she feels under appreciated for her looks and envies people like Elena, it is sad how this fact of her plainness distresses her.

Astrov's acknowledgement of nature's degrading state shows that Chekhov intended to send a very real and relevant message by adding facts like the abuse of nature by man. To me this shows that he is really trying to accurately recreate life in a certain place with very real people and issues. "Already only one third of the area is woodland. There are no longer any goats..." I can't believe that a hundred years ago an author was already addressing issues that we are seeing in huge proportions today, this means that man's over expansion has been effecting our world long before anyone really took a stand against the terrible effects. I think plays like Chekhov's even though he doesn't focus on the matter could have been a start. The way Chekhov weaves in the environmental problem shows that people from the beginning were very indifferent or too ignorant to understand or care, this clearly portrays problems that we still face today with relation to ignorance and indifference and he is showing how dangerous and damaging this position can be. Astrov, though passionate gets quickly brushed off when he begins discussing the environment and today we still face many of the same reactions.

One quote that I found very interesting was, "Dr. Mikhail Lvovich rarely came to visit us before, once a month perhaps, and then it was hard to persuade him, but now he drives over every day; he's deserted both his forests and his medicine. You must be a witch." Sonya is talking to Elena and I think this quote shows the clearest difference in between the two women, one gets all of the men and good fortune while the other is not particularly attractive and is unmarried. Like the fact the Sonya is madly in love with Astrov and he confesses a terrible infatuation for Elena puts her in a difficult position with her friend but must be also very frustrating because these things happen unconsciously but still she sometimes has to suffer the consequences. Also, I wonder why it was the Elena and Sonya had been fighting before, another very usual thing and very probable even in the best relationship. Serebryakov's selfish nature brings out the good and bad in people and only the best stand by him, there are many older people out there just like him who are huge ungrateful burdens and so we understand Sonya's and Elena's frustration because they don't have a choice, they are bound to him. At the end of this act Voinitsky tries to kill Serebryakov, I think that his actions show exactly how much of a burden the man has been and how much Voinitsky is suffering because he was driven to such desperation. When humans are panicking or greatly dissatisfied or have nothing to lose they may resort to very irresponsible and dangerous actions just like Voinitsky to fight their last fight before giving up on themselves. Voinitsky is the clearest example of blind suffering by trying to kill another man.

Uncle Vanya Act II

As the play progresses we are show in detail the relationship between Elena Andryevna and her aging husband Serebryakov. He is shown as the demanding old man and she is the distressed, tired and bored young wife. Her regret for marrying such a man especially because of his age and attitude emerges as she forces herself to stay up late into the night to comply with his demands. You begin to pity the poor Elena who is truly unhappy and criticize her husband's egocentricity. "It's unbearable! Tell me, what is it you want of me?" This quote clearly shows Elena's desperation and frustration because she is being kept up late into the night because of her husband's constant complaining. This does make you wonder why she agreed to marry such a man in the first place if he was already aging and might mean that there were other motives other than love behind the engagement which is rather cruel of her to do to an old man with gout. Then the complaining about age begins and for the rest of his lines in this act there is always a whining reference to old age, "...haven't I the right to a peaceful old age and a little attention?" This is one of the many example of him referring to his age. I also noticed that he knows that he's causing many people to be miserable and restless because of his illness and the way he is handling it but his indifference to their emotions is saddening, he just sits in bed playing the part of the victim. I wonder if this attitude will persist throughout the play?

Serebryakov is very bitter and spiteful but you feel sorry for him too because everyone rolls their eyes at his pain and suffering and even though all the people seem very kind and thoughtful they don't care or have much pity for him. I think that maybe all of these different people are living together because of him but I haven't figured out why people like Teleyegin who is not there to help him is there. His wife is clearly there because of her vow to him, along with his daughter and the nurse and daughter. I'm guessing that Voinitsky is there because of his love for Elena but I don't understand why his mother also lives on the estate. They don't seem to be very wealthy but they aren't very humble either, especially Serebryakov and his wife. Marina is the most charitable and gentle towards him but also is very firm and is able to convince him to go to bed to stop distressing everyone "Old folks like the little ones want somebody to feel sorry for them, but nobody feels sorry for the old. Come, my dear, go to bed now...Come along, dovey..." She sympathizes the most with him but is also firm, this shows a very powerful personality especially if she can get a person like him to be quiet!

The conflict between Voinitsky and Serebryakov, the husband and wife and others may be the reason why all these people are together under one roof, to discuss and try to conclude these issues. Other people are starting to find out about Voinitsky's secret and you feel bad for him because he lays out all of his emotions so plainly so that you pity the poor man. He also wallows about age and lost chances, and there isn't much happiness in the household. I wonder if when Serebryakov and his wife leave there will be more peace and harmony in the house. The play has evolved into a more detailed account focused on all these people living in one place and their relationships, this may be the author's way of trying to explain how human nature is by building it and creating relations and watching them grow or disintegrate.

Uncle Vanya Act I

I found that the play had a slow start and I found the names very confusing and hard to follow. I had to look back every few lines to make sure I knew who was talking and this was definitely frustrating. Also, Chekhov just jumps into the story without really introducing the characters or the plot which caused me to feel lost at the beginning. Luckily from each of the character's speeches I got to analyze them and learn a bit more about them. Each character has a distinct personality that makes them individual so that even though I was uncertain of the names I could distinguish each one by their attitude and speaking style. Moreover the language that Cheknov uses is very modern and easy to understand which makes it a much easier play to read than a Shakespearean play. Each character has his or her quirks for example Voinitsky is a very negative sour character, "Elena: It's a fine day... not too hot... Voinitsky: A fine day to hang oneself..." This very negative attitude makes the reader wonder what has happened to this man to make him so unappreciative of nature and the world in general. I think that this is the way the author introduces the characters, by slowly evolving their personalities so that each one is distinct and individual.

My impression of the first act was that the author created each character to complement another. Voinisky's negative attitude is matched by Astrov's love of nature and belief in the good that is necessary to keep the world going. Voinitsky mocks the was Astrov has a passion for nature and how he gets distressed over dissolving ecosystems but Astrov believes in his cause and doesn't let Voinitsky shrink his confidence. Elena Andreyevna's shy inquisitiveness is matched by her husband's open loud and demanding personality. There are many interesting relationships in the play but at the end of the first act emerges some action. The secret unrequited love that Voinitsky has for Elena. "How else can I look at you, since I love you. You are my joy, my life, my youth..." This allows us to foreshadow conflict between them and maybe even her husband and adds passion and emotion to the play. This also led me to assume that the reason for his negativity is because of this unsatisfied passion he has for a married woman, this makes his life unbearable because she is out of his reach.

One question came to my mind as I was reading the first scene, why are all these different people living together under the same roof? Hopefully I will learn the reason. I think that the first act is a slow start to the play and we get introduced to action later on, this makes the beginning a bit dull but we by the end we are hooked.

A Simple Heart

I think that the title of the work is very appropriate since in summary the main character Felicity has a very simple heart, she is easily satisfied and is strong and selfless. Though throughout the years she lost companions and loved ones she always kept going and stayed positive and this is what makes her and incredible character, she never loses faith in her own life. I found that she seemed more affectionate and motherly that Madame Aubain was towards her own children. She was extremely loyal and faithful to people she loves which showed her strength when she lost a loved one because she always recovered or was the one who helped others through the terrible event.‘Hurry up, hurry up!’ Madame Aubain climbed over the ditch, pushed Virginia up, then Paul, fell several times in trying to climb over the slope, and by dint of courage succeeded. "The bull had driven Felicity into a corner against an opening in the hedge; his slaver sprayed on her face, a second more and he would have gored her. She had time to slip between two bars, and the big beast, quite surprised, stopped short." I think this quote shows that humble Felicity was willing to give up her life for her mistress and her children. I think it was these kind of relationships and devotion that satisfied Felicity.

One thing that I found as I read was that Felicity began as a more vibrant character who was always smiling and played with the children but as the story progressed she became more serious and somber. Even though she never really lost hope she had several moments of desperation like when she lost her nephew or her Mistress' child. These moments made her harden and find new, small things to keep herself relatively happy. Even after saving her Mistress and her children from the bull Felicity's composure never changed, she remained humble and faithful. I think she's a very strong character because many events in her life could have driven her to insanity since the only family she had was her Madame Aubain and the people in her town but one by one they dropped out of her life. I like how Flaubert made his character develop and react positively in comparison to her situation because her faultless sense of hope gave the readers hope that there would be a better tomorrow.

"...she begged him to show her the house where Victor was living. Bourais raised his arms, sneezed, laughed enormously; such ingenuousness excited his joy: and Felicity did not understand the cause of it—she who was expecting, perhaps, even to see a photograph of her nephew, so limited was her intelligence." I think that Felicity's ignorance in some ways protected her from the cruelties of the world because she was too naive to understand or to fully grasp the issue and thus didn't pay much attention to it. The fact that she learnt a lot and grew spiritually and emotionally in the novel may have also aided her in terrible times because it gave her someone to turn to. Religion is very good as a comforter because it is one of the few things in life that is permanent and so it will never leave your life or abandon you like people do. At times I felt as though the author was being unjust to the character because he was making such a good, kind person suffer so greatly throughout her life. I'm guessing that his focus when throwing so many obstacles in Felicity's way was to show how she would handle the issues and see whether or not she grows and develops from the experience.

A last thing that I noticed and liked was the fact that Felicity passes away with a smile on her face. "Her lips smiled. The beats of her heart slowed one by one, more unsteady each time, more gentle like a fountain that is exhausted, like an echo that disappears; and when she breathed her last breath she thought she saw in the heavens as they opened, a gigantic parrot, flying above her head." Even to the very end she had a last little gleam of hope with her stuffed parrot. I think it is touching how she had found a way to survive by taking that parrot into her heart and making him her last hope. It's sweet how he is the last thing she thinks about before she dies and also she was able to preserve him, like religion after his death by stuffing him so that she could keep him by her side until the very end. This devotion demonstrate her capacity to love and her need for someone or something to support her and even though her choice is rather comical it keeps her satisfied until her last breath. I think people should always have someone or something to turn to just like Felicity because it seemed to comfort her in her worst moments and help her survive and that is what we all need, a little boost from time to time to keep us going, just like Felicity.

Seize the Day

Tamkin becomes a more and more hateful character as you reach end of the novel and the author does an excellent job in expressing Wilhelm’s distress. I found that Bellow used literary devices when he described Tamkin, “His eyes were brown as beaver fur…” I found was a very interesting and unexpected way to describe someone eyes. But why a beaver? Many animals have brown fur, maybe it’s because beavers build and destroy things as a way of survival which is a good description and an even better comparison of Dr. Tamkin’s nature. “Sensational, but oddly enough, dull, too. Now how do you figure that out? It blends with the background. Funny but unfunny. True but False. Casual but laborious, Tamkin was.” This quote is full of paradoxes showing Tamkins contradictory nature very clearly. These statements are all very true of his personality and I find them so appropriate that it is no surprise that it is necessary for the author to use literary devices to describe such a complicated character. This is a very good way to create a sense or image of what the character is like.

I read that Tamkin was trying to calm a distressed Wilhelm by telling him to “Seize the day” and was mentally preparing him by reminding him of the “here-and-now” but even though the statement seems profound it is just another one of Tamkin’s mental tricks. Though the literal meaning, telling Wilhelm to seize the day, the exact moment, think it over and make the best decision could have been useful, no one ever showed Tommy this side of “Seize the day”. This advice could have saved him from many past regrets but without a dependable person to tell him other wise he wasn’t sharp enough to make the correct connection. I think that the title is very relevant to the theme but isn’t apparent in the characters development and growth, this makes his such a naïve and helpless man, he doesn’t know any better and everyone has turned their back to him. Though Tommy lacked common sense an honest helping hand would have gone an long way in restoring order in his life.

I found that some big ideas or motifs in this novel were money and happiness. Wilhelm seemed obsessed with the idea that only money could buy happiness and since he didn’t have any he was in a rut. This negative attitude was a factor in keeping him from enjoying life and money in a way blinded him. He suffered greatly because of his financial issues and was hateful and even wrathful towards those economically stable including his father. Money and bliss were very linked in “Seize the Day” because of Wilhelm’s obsessive money mentality and thus, creating conflicts between all of the characters. Margaret needed money from Wilhelm, Wilhelm needed money from his father, Tamkin was handling his money, his father looked down on him because of his lack of money… the book was strung together by people and their financial issues. I think it is really sad how much the issue of wealth controlled and dominated his life but I felt that he really wasn’t doing much about it which seemed very ironic. He always complained about what a rut he was in but all he did was watch the value of his lard and rye rise or fall, he could have been a lot more productive and this waste of time made me less sympathetic towards him.

The money obsession doesn’t literally have to represent money but instead human greed and over indulgence and focus on material, unimportant things. I think Saul Bellow was trying to tell his readers that not only do you have to work to succeed and be satisfied but that you shouldn’t be completely absorbed with the material things and focus on needs rather than wants. I think this is a very good and relevant message since finance is such an enormous issue in modern society that it relates to many people. This book is easily relatable because anyone could be in Wilhelm’s position and Bellow is trying to show his readers a way out of such a dangerous lifestyle by shocking them with cold hard facts. I also liked how he was able to write an entire novel using one day as a time frame. This is very unusual in books and made it more memorable for me. It definitely helped the reader to understand and sympathize with Wilhelm when we got into his mind but this also made the book drag on exaggeratedly at times. It was a new and interesting approach on writing and made title relevant since it was in the course of a day.

I didn’t like the ending because it didn’t give a sense of closure but I guess that could be expected since things couldn’t change dramatically in one day. I was expecting Wilhelm, after so much grief and suffering to pick himself up and try to change his situation but still, he didn’t try to change. His crying was emotionally relieving but it wouldn’t make a difference, it wouldn’t make his father give him money or get his wife back or his money back so I was dissatisfied and disappointed. Overall it was an interesting book with a different theme and structure that could easily relate to the reader but did have its share of small action. I think the moral is, in a few words, don’t end up like Wilhelm!

Sieze The Day

As I kept reading I noticed that Wilhelm is a very self pitying and jealous guy. When he met Mr. Perls at breakfast he instantly began to criticize his attire and his overall presence. I think that he was especially harsh on Mr. Perls because he would get his father’s undivided attention and respect effortlessly while his father looked down at his poor son. It is overwhelming how weak Wilhelm is emotionally and I think it is very ironic that physically he is a very big, strong man. Mr. Adler is exaggeratedly cruel with his son and I think it is very upsetting and awful how terribly and how detached his actions are toward his son. This constant mistreatment obviously scars Wilhelm and has made him a very bitter person but still he tries to impress his father by bragging to Mr. Perls or any other method that would win his father’s respect.

As we continue in the story we find that Wilhelm is a very immature character. He doesn’t know how to make decisions and knowingly makes wrong ones. I think that his father is the source of all his problems and that is why he has conflicts with himself. It’s really strange how he knows what decision would be the best for him and would have the most positive outcome but every time he ignores his instinct. I think this makes him immature because he never learns his lesson and thus, makes the same mistakes over again, this idleness makes him seem very simple and makes him a very frustrating character. “The very shade of green of Tamkin’s check looked wrong; it was a false, disheartening color. His handwriting was peculiar, even monstrous…” This quote is Wilhelm so obviously mulling over all of the pros and cons of having a man like Tamkin handling his money and it seems so mistrusting that it’s hard to believe that anyone, with even the slightest doubt, would continue with the deal. It is situations like these that make Wilhelm an innocent and immature man because he doesn’t want to face the fact that some one may be a con and may steal his money. He is naïve and oblivious to the fact that there are bad people out there preying on weak, innocent others.

I find Tamkin a very interesting character. He is extremely quirky and seems to be a huge liar. All of the stories that he has told Wilhelm so far and unbelievable and simply ridiculous, I think he creates them to make himself feel more important and useful. He prides himself in “helping…healing people” and I think this shows a very arrogant and obnoxious side of the man. He doesn’t help people because of his kind heart but instead to nurture his ego and I think it’s terrible how easily he can manipulate Wilhelm. For example, with their rye investment well on the rise Wilhelm want to sell so that he can be assured some money but Tamkin talks and even tries to hypnotize Wilhelm out of it so that he can keep speculating it. “Say to yourself here-and-now, here-and-now, here-and-now. ‘Where am I?’ ‘Here.’ “When is it?’ ‘Now.’…” This kind of attitude shows me a very selfish and bad man and I think Tommy is foolish in having so much faith in him. Though when we read through Tommy’s thoughts they do doubt his associate many times but this isn’t enough for him to break off his tie to him. This shows me a weak and rather pathetic dependence on Tommy’s part because he has lost so much that he grasps at anything or anyone for comfort. His indecision is one of his biggest flaws and has gotten him into many disasters.

Mr. Tangen I highlighted my spelling corrections on my previous posts.

CORRECTIONS

Candide by Voltaire
I found that from the twenty second chapter until the end of the novel the main character was surrounded by pessimistic people that started to weaken his grasp on Pangloss' optimism. The man that Candide chose to accompany him through all of his voyages in an annoyingly sour man who has nothing but negative words coming out of his mouth. "I have travelled to several provinces. In some you find half the people are fools...there are some parts of the country where people are simple and stupid, and others where they pretend to be witty." This is Martin, Candide's chosen partner generalizing the demeanour of the French, Candide optimistically asks about Paris hoping for a more enthusiastic response but again gets the same tone. It frustrates me how negative everyone is in the novel, I don't understand how Candide can bear being with such exasperating characters and not lose any faith in Pangloss' theories. All Martin has to say for humanity as a whole is this: "If hawks have always had the same character, why should you suppose that men have changed theirs?" Martin sees no hope for the human race but sees them condemned to be useless, fretful creatures until the end of time. Thus, Martin in this case can not even be swayed by his companions optimism but would rather laugh in his face at his ridiculous ideas. Martin may be right about some of the tragedies of humans and their nature but he turns a blind eye to humanity's achievement. Voltaire made him this way to give Candide a task or something to do, but we learn that Martin will never change his views.All of the characters in the novel have had very terrible experiences and this fuels all of their bitterness towards life except for Candide's naive optimism that was brought upon him by the "wise" Pangloss. When Candide and Martin arrive in France and flaunt their wealth they are flocked by greedy people who want to take advantage of them. Candide being so positive and clueless doesn't know any better and falls into the hands of many selfish men and women. The fact that Candide can't even see the evil in a person who only looks to seek benefits from him maddens me because of his plain stupidity. Voltaire made his main character this way to exaggerate his point and making easier to target him, in the twenty second chapter he even gets used by a woman who seduces him into giving her his diamond rings, Voltaire uses sensuality to show another weakness not only in Candide but maybe in men in general that when confronted by sex, they can be easily persuaded. Though Candide is deeply resentful of his actions his weakness still shows and that is the point that the author may be trying to tell his readers, to show his character's weaknesses. When the French man that had become very friendly with Candide tries to arrest him but is bought off by some jewels the author portrays corruption maybe in the government but at least in man kind. How a man can change his opinions when faces with valuables is rather pathetic but Voltaire paints it beautifully.In a following chapter Candide begins his futile search for Cunegonde, months go by without the reader noticing and I realized that maybe the author doesn't include time because that is how Candide lives his life. Sometimes a moment can go on for pages and months can go by in one, Candide seems to live oblivious to his surroundings at times especially if Lady Cunegonde is involved. I think that the author proved how desolate the world and the people in it had become when Candide and Martin make a bet on a couple's happiness, "but his wife who was violently jealous used to beat me unmercifully every day!" This quote was said by the girl Pacquette who feigned her satisfaction for life as a survival method. I can imagine Candide's feeling of hopelessness at this point, he can't find his mistress or a single moderately content person in all of Europe! Most people at least find serenity in god but a monk that Candide interviews has been tempted to set his own monastery on fire! Until now Voltaire has given us a very desolate image of Europe and the readers expect a happy ending. In Candide even money can't buy satisfaction as Count Pococurante proves to us, even with his gorgeous Raphael paintings and a vast book collection, he has nothing but criticism. If this is the case I wonder if Voltaire is going to explain to his readers what in fact does make people happy?

Sieze The Day

The novel "Seize the Day " is a very interesting novel especially structurally. The author's writing style is very unlike any of the styles we have read in our past novels and I think it can be clever and confusing at the same time. The readers get to follow the main character through his daily routine and also be inside his mind. The time frames are very different since in twenty pages Wilhelm has talked extensively of several memories and also has barely made it to the breakfast table at the same time. It must have been challenging to write two stories at the same time including the same character. One thing I noticed is that when Wilhelm thinks the author doesn't use quotations and that indicates to me that the character is bringing back not only memories but conversations all at once making it unnecessary to use quotation marks though it would distinguish conversations. Though we get to slowly experience Wilhelm's routine we get to know his past and his regrets very quickly, the author introduces the character through his memories. "After much thought and hesitation and debate he invariably took the course he had rejected innumerable times." This quote shows the readers how weak and indecisive Wilhelm had been and his bitterness towards all of the impulsive mistakes he had made. The character seems rather pathetic since he lists all of his biggest impulsive screw ups bitterly and I wondered what it was that drove him to make decisions he didn't fully support.

I think that this indecisiveness helps the readers build an opinion or an image of Wilhelm's character, he is very bitter and resentful but outwardly is portrayed as cheerful and friendly. "That dark little gloomy Artie with his disgusting narrow face, his moles and his self-sniffing ways and his unclean table manners, the boring habit he had of conjugating verbs when you went for a walk with him." When I read this sentence I didn't feel bad for boring Artie for being so harshly criticized but rather for Wilhelm because he sounds jealous of his smart, successful cousin who may be snooty and boring but at least he wasn't a drop out. I think that his father's apathetic attitude towards others and especially him left a deep scar in Wilhelm's emotions because he wanted to please and feel satisfaction but was always cut short or even scorned by his father. This leaves Wilhelm to become a bitter man but we discover all this resentment only in his thoughts he is always courteous and pleasant around other people, I think he does this because it is not other people's fault that he has problems and doesn't want to take it out on them.

The structure makes the book interesting because we get two perspectives, the outward one showing us how Wilhelm acts towards everyone. I don't think that his courteousness with people like Rubin is fake but he is trying to make the best of his situation and at that moment may even be cheerful. The other side or his darker side is expressed through his thoughts and memories and this is where the readers witness Wilhelm's problems. These two sides of him are almost like alter-egos, so different and such opposites but still in the same body. Also Tommy's explanation for the name change seems like he's always wanted to become someone else, someone better, this way of thinking may have been caused by his father. I think it is sad how regretful Tommy is of some parts of his life but it seems like he is very pessimistic as well which doesn't help him. Its strange how neither time frames are written in the future but rather both in different pasts so I can't figure out who the narrator is but hopefully as I read on it'll become clear.

A Friendly Fire

I found this passage so overwhelmingly normal that it was surprising that there was no drama or action. This made the story monotonous and kept the reader expecting to have a snip of action pop up but there was never any climax and I felt kind of dissatisfied with the outcome of the action since there was none. I was expecting the son to die or something to happen in the warehouse the women were working at but there was no dramatic change of events. The characters were some what strange or awkward but there was nothing significant about the story with regards to the plot. The author did use rather interesting comparisons and literary devices that made the components of the piece more interesting. "...cut off as abruptly as if someone had pulled a switch, only the memory of them left like markers on the surface above deep water." I found this quote as a very interesiting and different simile because of the strange comparison. The author is comparing a fading memory to a marker and a deep water, deep water. The "deep water" represents the memory as a whole and is comparing it to a vasty and mystical place, the marker can represent just a small figment of a memory and this line caught my eye because i think it is a very clever way of stating such an ordinary thing.

Also the author used a pair of very contradictory words side by side, she wrote "like an ancient baby". This phrase gives a very effective visual description in my opinion because we get to picture the softness of a baby with ancient wrinkles. I'm not sure if this is a paradox or an oxymoron but I think that this adds an interesting element to they style and description of the character because the two words are very visual common. There is a strange simplicity in the writing style of the author that makes it a very relaxed read and I think that if she had used some of her techniques to include action or more dramatic events to the story, it would have been a very dynamic read. The author used literary devices to exaggerate or empasize a character's personality or appearance and I found that "A Friendly Fire" was interestingly written because we didn't get into the protagonist's mind but instead we were very much left to look through a window at what the character was doing almost adding a standoffish feeling. The author bounces around between Pam and Shelly very unexpectedly so we feel that the author or the narrator is in full control rather than the characters. There is very little dialogue in this short story as well. I wonder if it is because of each character's personality or because of the setting.

I also realized that Pam and Shelly are complete opposites, one is tall and skinny and the other is tubby. One is calm and relaxed, and the other is more crazy or energetic. Their rutine lives bring them together and in this case opposites work well together. I wonder why the author chose to have his leading persons in such a depressing occupation, I found that her description of the work place was rather depressing and was repelling, maybe the circumstances were made this way to give hope to the readers to expect more or to work hard in life.

Candide by Voltaire

I found that from the twenty second chapter until the end of the novel the main character was surrounded by pessemistic people that started to weaken his grasp on Pangloss' optimism. The man that Candide chose to accompany him through all of his voyages in an annoyingly sour man who has nothing but negative words coming out of his mouth. "I have travelled to several provinces. In some you find half the people are fools...there are some parts of the country where people are simple and stupid, and others where they pretend to be witty." This is Martin, Candide's chosen partener generalizing the demeanour of the French, Candide optimistically asks about Paris hoping for a more enthusiatic response but again gets the same tone. It frustrates me how negative everyone is in the novel, I don't understand how Candide can bear being with such exasperating characters and not lose any faith in Pangloss' theories. All Martin has to say for humanity as a whole is this: "If hawks have always had the same character, why should you suppoe that men have changed theirs?" Martin sees no hope for the human race but sees them condemned to be useless, fretful creatures until the end of time. Thus, Martin in this case can not even be swayed by his companions optimism but would rather laugh in his face at his ridiculous ideas. Martin may be right about some of the tragedies of humans and their nature but he turns a blind eye to humanity's achievement. Voltaire made him this way to give Candide a task or something to do, but we learn that Martin will never change his views.

All of the characters in the novel have had very terrible experiences and this fuels all of their bitterness towards life except for Candide's naive optimism that was brought upon him by the "wise" Pangloss. When Candide and Martin arrive in France and flaunt their wealth they are flocked by greedy people who want to take advantage of them. Candide being so positive and clueless doesn't know any better and falls into the hands of many selfish men and women. The fact that Candide can't even see the evil in a person who only looks to seek benefits from him maddens me because of his plain stupidity. Voltaire made his main character this way to exaggerate his point and making easier to target him, in the twenty second chapter he even gets used by a woman who seduces him into giving her his diamond rings, Voltaire uses sensuality to show another weakness not only in Candide but maybe in men in general that when confronted by sex, they can be easily persuaded. Though Candide is deeply resentful of his actions his weakness still shows and that is the point that the author may be trying to tell his readers, to show his character's weaknesses. When the French man that had become very friendly with Candide tries to arrest him but is bought off by some jewels the author portrays corruption maybe in the government but atleast in man kind. How a man can change his opinions when faces with valuables is rather pathetic but Voltaire paints it beautifully.

In a following chapter Candide begins his futile search for Cunegonde, months go by without the reader noticing and I realized that maybe the author doesn't include time because that is how Candide lives his life. Sometimes a moment can go on for pages and months can go by in one, Candide seems to live oblivious to his surroundings at times especially if Lady Cunegonde is involved. I think that the author proved how desolate the world and the people in it had become when Candide and Martin make a bet on a couple's happiness, "but his wife who was violently jealous used to beat me unmercifully every day!" This quote was said by the girl Pacquette who feigned her satisfaction for life as a survival method. I can imagine Candide's feeling of hoplessness at this point, he can't find his mistress or a single moderatly content person in all of Europe! Most people at least find serenity in god but a monk that Candide interviews has been tempted to set his own monastary on fire! Untill now Voltaire has given us a very desolate image of Europe and the readers expect a happy ending. In Candide even money can't buy satisfaction as Count Pococurante proves to us, even with his gorgeous Raphael paintings and a vast book collection, he has nothing but criticism. If this is the case I wonder if Voltaire is going to explain to his readers what in fact does make people happy?

Candide Chapters 16-20

In the sixteenth chapter Candide uses his shooting skills to shoot down to monkeys who are chasing two women. The author had to turn this ridiculous and heroic act into a tragedy to fit along with the rest of Candide's experiences and so the monkey's turn out to be the ladies' lovers! "You have killed those two ladies' lovers!" What are the chances that when there are two damsels seemingly in distress they are actually with their strange lovers? This could only happen to Candide, this is also a very big example of irony. He was trying to be their saviour and protector but instead he gets himself tangled with the Oreillons and almost gets skewered. It is also interesting to see the toll the rash murder of Cunegonde's brother takes on Candide's conscience, "What is the use of prolonging my miserable existence, if I must drag out my days in remorse and despair at being banished from her presence?" Candide is very resentful but he gets over his actions soon enough and eats. The encounter with the Oreillons is yet another cause and effect event. If Candide hadn't killed Cunegonde's brother they would have had no need to flee and wouldn't have encountered the Oreillons. Since Candide had dressed in a Jesuit's attire to escape he was captured by the Oreillons because they have an appetite for their enemies. Luckily, Cacambo was experienced in their dialect and he was able to prove their innocence and save their lives. Pangloss would have been very satisfied with the outcome.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters Voltaire goes into a lengthy description of the city of Eldorado. The chapter begins with Candide's criticism of the old and new world and is lead to explore a completely different society. The fact that Candide and his servant walked in the general direction of Cayenne made it more probable for them to stumble upon a different society. They took a river which flows in only one direction so it was in a way pushing the pair towards their destiny. The city of Eldorado is created with very Utopian ideals, I think that the author wanted to have a bridge in between all the tragedies and disasters that have occurred and have his characters escape reality for a while. "The children of the kings of this country must be well brought up, if they are taught to despise gold and precious stones." This quote shows how this utopia even rejects objects of greed like valuables which makes it all the more tempting for the two foreigners. The author makes the city an extreme utopia, almost like a heaven with people carry coats of hummingbird feathers and restaurants without bills, it is criticizing how there isn't anything in this world that is free. Their utopia is one of abundance and excess but also of unawareness, the people don't notice or care for their "yellow dirt" and serve, "four tureens of soup, each garnished with two parakeets, a boiled vulture weighing about two hundred pounds, two delicious roast monkeys, three hundred doves on one plate and six hundred hummingbirds on another..." The Society does not recognize its valuables.

The utopia would obviously be an ideal world, the king accepts strangers into his palace for a month they are even allowed to kiss his cheeks. This would never occur in the "new or old worlds" because of all the stratification that modern societies have. "The door a mere silver, and the rooms were paneled with nothing better than gold..." this quote is very sarcastic, it is targeting the old man who has such insignificant possessions in comparison to the king but in the real world it would be impossible to have gold paneled rooms. This utopia has been created to change the somber mood and keep the characters content but it also shows the emergence of human greed because they take valuables, thinking only of themselves. The characters are a reflection of modern society, they wouldn't be able to live in a utopia like Eldorado because of their greed for material possessions. I found it interesting that the inhabitants were not allowed to leave their city but in such a harmonious place only the most rebellious would want to leave. This may be hinting that the utopia is more autocratic than expected.

When Candide arrives in a port city again with his valuables Voltaire clearly demonstrates the degraded state of human morale by having a captain steal all of Candide's riches, "You see my friend how perishable are the riches of this world." Voltaire's and Candide's explanation for this selfish action is "That is the sort of trick you would expect in the old world." This clearly states Votaire's dislike and pessimistic opinion on the old world or most likely the society he is living in. What I didn't quite understand is why Candide, await his voyage looks for a partner to accompany him, he chose one of the most pessimistic men. You would think that he would have tried to find a man that could cheer him up after his terrible experiences. The fact that his chosen companion, Martin doesn't believe in good keeps the satirical element of irony because he chose the least positive, lost and confuse associate to converse with. Martin's personality is completely opposite to Candide's and this help them contemplate each other's opinions and exchange ideas. Martin's ideology was proved during the voyage with the two battling ships, "you see how men treat each other...there is certainly something diabolical about that." This is a criticism of god's existence. Candide's optimism is also proved when he finds one of his lost sheep.

Candide

As I kept reading I found very ridiculous passages in the text, "Pangloss lost only an eye and an ear." This texts shows how satirical this work is because it said ONLY an eye and an ear, most people would be devastated but the author just mentions this tragedy in passing. One thing that I have noticed in this piece is that there aren't many references to time, you don't know if it is day or night most of the time and I was surprised to discover that a few years had passed. I wonder if this method is used as a confusing element to add with the strange encounters and places that Candide visits. This book has many tragedies in it, for example Pangloss is killed but luckily throughout all his adventures Candide survives even if all the skin has been whipped off his back. There is a lot of exaggeration in the novel to add drama and make each short scene more intense for the reader but this exaggeration can make even the most tragic even comical.

The novel had a turning point when Cunegonde is found alive because now Candide becomes not only a heroic man who has gone through torture and war but also is braver with his love at his side. Now we get to hear Cunegonde's stories of her abuse and her family's murder and is even more dramatic than Candide. "You can well imagine how distracted I was. One moment I was almost beside myself with frenzy, the next I was at death's door from very faintness." This is a perfect example of how over dramatic Cunegonde was but it was a good way for the readers to feel the contrasting emotions. As far as I have read I found that the old woman's story was the most dramatic and the most fictional of all of the events that gave me an impression of complete ridicule of misfortune. The story ridicules many areas of every day life like the church, the government etc. The author tries to lighten up any possible terrible situation by making fun of each by exaggerating and using sarcasm, ironies and paradoxes. That is why the book is also called "Optimism" because he creates terrible situations but hast the most hopeful character experience them so that he can still be content with the most awful situations.

"Candide" by Voltaire

I reread the book from the very beginning because I found that the link sent to us on our blogs was a different version from the book. The condensed version on the internet seemed obviously satirical while the book is more cleverly written with the techniques of a satire hidden inside the text. One thing that I found very prominent in all the chapters that I read was Candide referring and using Dr. Pangloss' cause and effect theory. This theory reminded me of Epictetus' "The Handbook" because of the "going with nature" point of view and also Candide and Pangloss make a huge effort to strongly believe there could be other possible outcome than the present one. "For all this," said he, "is a manifestation of the rightness of things, since if there is a volcano at Lisbon it could not be anywhere else. For it is impossible for things not to be the way they are, because everything is for the best." This quote shows their passiveness towards events that could even resemble the Tralfamadorian state of mind, that what happens, happens and you have to move on. Incorporated into that idea was also the conviction that the volcano was there for a reason and we may think its silly but it gave Candide and Pangloss and explanation. Moreover, this way of thinking gave them hope and optimism for a better tomorrow so that they could continue living in whatever circumstances day to day. This way of thinking may be an explanation for Voltaire's title choice, "Candide or Optimism"

In the following chapters Dr. Pangloss and Candide contemplate the meaning of love somewhat spitefully because of their terrible misfortunes. They both were maddened by an overpowering love and they both lost her which made the men bitter, contradictory to what love is. "I Know what love is," said Candide, with a shake of his head,"this sovereign of hearts and quintessence of our souls:my entire reward has been a kiss and twenty kicks on the backside. But how could such a beautiful cause produce so hideous an effect upon you?" This quote is the essence of Candide's spite not only because he's lost his love but the fact that he is in all these terrible places and situations because of one kiss. When describing love Voltaire uses paradoxes to express how bitter-sweet love is, "In her arms I tasted the delights of Paradise, and they produced hellish torments..." This quote is a perfect example of how paradoxical love is, how beautiful yet painful it can be.

"Candine" by Voltaire: chapters 1-3

Voltaire’s use of crazy hyperbolic names remind me of “Gulliver’s Travels” even though “The Crying of Lot 49” also has exaggerated names, Voltaire’s names seem like completely made up words like in “Gulliver’s Travels”. The most interesting names I found in the first three chapters were, Doctor Pangloss, Baron of Thunder-ten-tronckh, Wald-berghoff-trarbkdikdorff. The third is supposedly a place but when I try to read it, it’s just a bunch of random letters put together. Voltaire’s satirical writing style is evident from the very beginning, a good pun that I found was “My Lady Baroness, who weighed three hundred and fifty pounds, consequently was a person of no small consideration”. This line talks about the Baroness’ literal weight and then goes on to mention that she “was a person of no small consideration”, this is amusing because this is making fun of how big she is. This was definitely an interesting introduction to Voltaire’s writing style.

The main character in “Candide”, Candide himself and his family, is ridiculed by the author and Voltaire uses small metaphors to exaggerate the characters social position these subtleties are small but prominent. For instance, “The Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows, and his great hall was hung with tapestry. He used to hunt with his mastiffs and spaniels instead of greyhounds; his groom served him for huntsman; and the parson of the parish officiated as his grand almoner”. This quote is saying how the Baron was so powerful that his castle “had not only a gate, but even windows” this is definite ridicule because all living quarters have windows. Also, the author is exaggerating the character’s position by saying “his groom served him for huntsman; and the parson of the parish officiated his grand almoner”. This means that his stable boy is also his hunting partner which shows that he is not as wealthy as claimed or else he would have both. Finally, the author talks about how the Baron uses mastiffs and spaniels instead of greyhounds” this seems like absurdity to me because I don’t think that you could use a small playful spaniel as a hunting dog. This again refers to the inflation of the characters position, the author makes us believe that indeed Candine is a powerful nobleman’s son but is actually quite average.

“One day when Miss Cunegund went to take a walk in a little neighboring wood which was called a park, she saw, through the bushes, the sage Doctor Pangloss giving a lecture in experimental philosophy to her mother's chambermaid, a little brown wench, very pretty, and very tractable. As Miss Cunegund had a great disposition for the sciences, she observed with the utmost attention the experiments which were repeated before her eyes; she perfectly well understood the force of the doctor's reasoning upon causes and effects. She retired greatly flurried, quite pensive and filled with the desire of knowledge, imagining that she might be a sufficing reason for young Candide, and he for her.”

I find it difficult to find a category in which this quote fits into because this is playing on how naïve the character is in thinking that what her great metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology teacher is doing is part of his “experiments. Moreover, she is even able to relate the scene to his teachings of cause and effect. The idea of cause and effect is brought up several times in the first three chapters and this shows Candine’s way of thinking. He is brought up to believe that one event is the outcome of his actions and his is statisfied with this because it seems to give him hope even when he is captured by the Bulgarians. I didn’t quite understand how Candine ended up in Bulgaria for kissing a girl. Was he banished because of the fact that the baron caught him kissing Miss Cunegund? Overall the first few chapters were pretty straightforward but I found the first to be much more satirical than the following two.

The Crying of Lot 49`

I think that in this novel the postal service is probably that biggest and most important motif. Also, the postal service signifies strength and authority and also clearly communication. The need for communication has made the postal service so important because a country would fall apart without it. I think that Pynchon used the postal service because of its importance and prestige in any country and a postal system of some kind has been around for centuries and will be necessary forever. Though we don't really notice it as much any more because of email and other technology postal service is what keeps a country running in some aspects because it is needed to keep each part of the country connected. Also everyone knows and understands the basics of the postal service so Pynchon could keep his readers attention because they can agree with his use of the postal service so the motif is not as random as it seems. As I've mentioned before Thomas Pynchon writes very authoritatively and so the powerful postal service fits in perfectly with the authors writing style.

Oedipa on the other hand is the opposite, she is very curious and flamboyant but not arrogant. She becomes obsessed by the idea of the Tristero and the underground postal service that she will go to all measures to investigate. I think its clever how the author links Pierce Inverarity to the Tristero by having knowledgeable people working on one of the dead man's properties or by having a secret stamp collection. Also it was creative how the author brought the Tristero to the United states thanks to immigration and Oedipa's curiosity helped us learn about it. I think that this book was very creative but complicated. The quirky characters may be the author making fun of real people like Oedipa could be the author's exaggeration of the fact that people always have to have answers. Mucho could represent uninterested society, The Paranoids could be The Beatles or other well known bands of the time, they would be the ones that are oblivious because of their obsession with music, drugs and women. I think that The Paranoids are just for entertaining purposes because they don't have much of a role in the book. All of the author's characters are extremely exaggerated to give the book a humorous effect.

One thing that I still find a bit confusing is my Pierce Inverarity named Oedipa as the executor of his estate if they had broken up? This may mean that he still had feelings for her or maybe he added her into his will before they had broken up, either way this was essential to make the thicken. I also noticed that there was the Peter Pinguid Society, I didn't quite understand it's importance at the beginning but now I think that this may have been one of the ways that the Tristero spread. With a group of unhappy people ready for change they create a society and make their own rules so this is a modern day expansion of the Tristero postal service. Even the play "The Courier's Tragedy" is real and it is thanks to this play that Oedipa discovers the story of the Tristero and the Thurn and Taxis empire. I'm surprised and how many facts Pynchon incorporates in his fictional novel.

"The Crying of Lot 49" is a very long and difficult book when you want to analyze it because it written very metaphorically and the challenge for the reader is to discover what the author really wants to tell us. Thomas Pynchon is a very clever author and his book is extremely dense which makes it very challenging. There can be so many interpretations of each character the setting that it is hard to find a correct answer. I think it is genius how Pynchon writes his books so mysteriously even though it can be frustrating and I think it would be interesting to read an analytical essay on the book, that kind of writing would help me understand the book better. I don't believe that I am knowledgeable enough to fully understand Pynchon's allegories. "The Crying of Lot 49" is probably one of the most difficult books that I've read.

Review of The Crying of Lot 49

After some class discussion I realized that I missed the fact that the novel was a satire and didn't understand many of Pynchon's complex jokes. He uses the post as his main theme because it is powerful and authoritative and this puts him at a level where he can make fun of people and society. Through the complex structure and vocabulary the novel "The Crying of Lot 49" is not as heavy as one thinks while they read, the crazy characters and made up setting proves that the book hasn't been made to be taken seriously but instead to entertain while weaving and intricate and relevant novel using history and fiction.

Class dicussions have given me more insight into the story and I realized that the Thurn and Taxis empire and postal service really did exist wich opened a new point of view for me. This proved to me that with Pynchon's sarcastic and confusing writing style it is very hard to distinguish lies from the truth. On the other hand Tristero is Pynchon's invention but since he either makes his writing very believable or a complete joke I was ready to believe that it existed. This fact and fiction factor made the book more difficult for me since I'm very gullible and would take the authors knowledge for granted. I think that it is very important to destinguish fact from fiction especially in novels but Pynchon's writing style is so matter-of-factly that he assumes his readers know exactly what he is talking about. I think it is very interesting how he uses outside information and incorporates it into a completely fictional novel. I'm wondering if maybe he does this to add a more realistic factor to the novel and make his plot more believable, either way it can be entertaining but at times very confusing.

The Crying of Lot 49: Chapter 6

In the final chapter the author reveals the meaning of the Tristero. First Oedipa calls the professor Emory Bortz to discuss her curiosity and through him and their joint investigation the reader gets what they have waited for, a possible explanation. Oedipa visits Bortz and discusses the play she watched produced by Randy Driblette and the second hand book she found. Bortz shows her a book and tells her to read the eighth chapter. This tells the readers the history of Tristero, a man who goes to a kingdom to recieve his inheritance but is shunned, he gives up his claims and sets up his own postal corporation to match his cousin, this underground, revolutionary organization has been said to exist ever since. Also in this chapter Oedipa finds out about Dribelette's death and is mildly distraught. She now understands the mystery of the Tristero but is puzzeled by the dead man's use of the final lines in the play which are quoted several times, she wishes she knew why he used them.

Later Oedipa meets with Mike Fallopian again and he asks her if she is certain that she hasn't imagined some things about the Tristero. This question leaves Oedipa feeling alone since the only thing that was keeping her moving was the hope that should would uncover the mysterious Trister but now she has every single person in her life gone or turned against her. This shows how people shouldn't trade in material or unpermanent things for the human element because we will end up alone a hopeless like Oedipa. One thing that I found very interesting is the fact that all the traces of the Tristero, in Oedipa's mind, could be traced back in some way to her ex-boyfriend, Pierce Inverarity. This is more evidence that the Tristero could really be a figment of Oedipa's imaginiation and would make Pierce and the Tristero strong motifs throughout the entire novel. For example his stamp collection is covered in strange symbols or tiny alterations.

The fact that the Tristero was said to have seeked refuge by going to the United States made it a possible and believable underground, anti-monopoly organization but I think it is up to the reader to decide if it really exists. Also we find out the meaning of the title of the novel. The "lot 49" is Pierce's stamp collection that is up for auction and the the auctioneer "cries" the bidding. I found that this is such a small part of the story that it is a strange phrase to use as the title. I think that it is a relevant title because of the fact that the lot 49 was evidence of the Tristero, Oedipa's obsession, but either no one knew or they were trying to hide away and slowly get rid of all the pieces of the puzzel, either way Oedipa would lose everything. It is a precise but complicated title.

I liked how the author clearly explained the title and the Tristero and didn't leave the reader hanging, I felt very satisfied with the conclusion and explanations but found the book a little strange. Also, the author just left us waiting to find out who the bidder was at the auction which left me frustrated. I wonder why he left that part out? The novel is a type of detached but emotional novel, I don't think it is a serious as one may seem but may be making fun of present day society and how we have to always have answers. It is telling us to sometimes slow down or else we may lose everything of importance, a strong and simple message.

The Crying Of Lot 49: Chapter 5

In the beginning of the fifth chapter Oedipa is on the move again continuing her investigation on the Tristero. As the chapter goes on she seems to be completely obssessed and possed by the need to find out what the Tristero is. She floats around the streets on busses and sees the muted horn symbol everywhere. The way the author describes her she seems insane or delusional, she is consumed but the question of what the Tristero is. She begins to see the symbol everywhere showing that either this organization is widely known or of her wishful thinking. Oedipa will go to all measures to discover the secret that she goes to stranger's houses like John Nefastis' house to see if she is a sensitive. But, he wasn't interested in Entropy or science, Oedipa is fearless and vunerable because of her search and she gets into dangerous situations at times. An obsession takes a different toll on each individual and in this case Oedipa may be losing her mind because of a fictional idea. The author is telling the readers that it is good to be curious and inquisitive but with his character he takes a research question and turns it into a strange passion.

When Oedipa is accidentally dragged into a gay bar she meets a man wearing the muted horn as a pin on his shirt and questions him. He tells her that it is an underground society that is against love and serious relationships because they are a dangerous addiction. This explanation throws the reader off since Oedipa has been looking in Inverarity's property and has associated it with the the mail like the pony express. This is just another redherring in the book and I think that it just adds to the suspense and wants the reader to find out what this symbol really means.

Another thing that I had not really payed attention to but occured during the entire novel was the fact that time is very skewed in this book. The author may go on about a single moment for several pages and then will say that a few days passed in a line. This makes the reader confused because even though the book is chronological this does slow or speed up the plot which at times is desirable since this could bore the reader. In the second half of the chapter Oedipa returns home to look for her psychologist and her husband. Her psycologist, Dr. Hilarious has lost his mind and is now completely paranoid while her husband is taking drugs and is completely delusional. She finally sobers up out of her crazy dream and feels at a complete loss because she has lost her husband.

One thing I noticed was that Oedipa admits her infidelity to her husband and mentions his past wanderings. The way that both of them take such a serious act shows their strange personality. Most people would be distraught at the fact that their partner had been with another person but they mention it in passing. I think this shows definite instability in their relationship and also insensitivity, they don't get attached to people because Metzeger and soon enough Mucho will also drop out of the story. Oedipa leaves her husband and goes back to continues investigating since now it seems like her search for the truth of the Tristero is the only thing that she has left.

The Crying of Lot 49: Chapter 4

In the fourth chapter Oedipa does alot of travelling and investigating, in each place she meets someone with some kind of relation to the Tristero symbol which she had discovered in a bathroom stall. "The Crying of Lot 49" would be an uneventful book if it weren't for Oedipa's inquisitive mind. Some of the places she went to were Pierce's property but some were part of an extended inverstigation, Oedipa will go to all lengths and measures to find out what the Tristero means. Coincedentally when Oedipa goes to talk to the man who is looking at Pierce's stamp collection finds the Tristero symbol as a water mark on the stamp. Hopefully all these strange clues and conincedences will come together in the following chapters so we can understand its significance. Oedipa thinks that it may mean that there is a group or secret society that uses the symbol and if so it must be ancient since there is evidence of the symbol since the 9th or so century. Neither Oedipa or the reader knows if it is a legal society so Oedipa decides to keep it under wraps for now.

There are only about six chapters in the book "The Crying of Lot 49" and all that I have understood is that a woman who is at a confusing, meaningless point of her life ends up being the executer of a rich dead man's property. I have followed her through many encounters with strange people and places but still I don't know how the author will be able to explain all the loose ends in his novel. I don't understand what the Tristero has to do with Inverarity directly but I guess it is because she finds all the clues on his property. For some reason Metzeger barely appeared in the fourth chapter, it seems like he is letting Oedipa take the lead to see what she can discover. This book is very strange and the interesting message of curiosity and secrets reminds the readers of how much people hide secrets from everyone. I hope that Oedipa will figure out the purpose and meaning of the Tristero because I'm very curious too.

The Crying of Lot 49: Chapter 3

I have found that as I continue to read the chapters become more confusing with new unimportant characters and situations. For example in the third chapter we meed a man called Mike Fallopian, he is a right winger who is anti-monopoly and refuses to use the US mail. He appears for a very short time in this chapter and seems very irrellevant and unimportant. He may symbolize the era in which this book is set and he introduces us to the Peter Pinguid Society, which is a very patriotic society. What I don't understand is what the importance of the society is in association with the plot. I see the novel "The Crying of Lot 49" as an abstract detective/mystery novel and a historical and patriotic group doesn't seem to fit with the setting.

Alot of the elements of the novel are random facts or people without much significance but that add some body to the complicated novel. For example as the chapter continues Oedipa, Metzeger and The Paranoids go to lake Inverarity and they meet another lawyer called di Presso who is sueing Inverarity. He goes into a story about a massacre during World War Two and the transport of bones from Italy to the United States which are supposedly being used for cigarrettes. I think that this story is very true but the use of the bones is disgusting and rediculous. Though the character is related to the story he is another unimportant one. Also I didn't understand why he kept on running away from his clients, the fact that he did and marooned the group on an island. The way they signaled for help (using their cigarrettes) and the entire situation did add comedy to the chapter.

The description of the play that Oedipa and Metzeger went to was disturbing and rather coincidental. The reason for their attendence was the fact that the Paranoids had mentioned that the story of the massacre in Italy reminded them of the play "The Courier's Tragedy". The play was bloody and tragic and was described in such detail that I'm guessing it has a big significance in the continuing chapters. Oedipa is very intrigued and inquisitive about the play even going as far as searching for the director. I think that this story has a realistic element but overall I find the plot very far-fetched because of the outrageous things that are mentioned like bone filters. I'm interested in seeing what the significance of the play and especially of Tristero in the continuing chapters.

The Crying of Lot 49: Chapter Two

In the second chapter I found even more strange hyperbolic names like Mr. Fallopian, it is a rediculous name that adds to the complicated humor in the novel. In this chapter Oedipa has left her home for the city of San Narciso which is actually a city that Thomas Pynchon made up in "The Crying of Lot 49". Narcissus is said to be a greek mythological person who falls in love with his own reflection. This seems contrary to the city since from what the author describes the city as dull or that it doesn't stand out. I had a hard time getting through this chapter because there is alot of difficult vocabulary that disguises a not too complicated plot. In this chapter Oepdipa arrives in the city of San Narciso to meet Pierce's lawyer. We get to learn about all of his extensive property and projects that now Oedipa has to take control of. The thing that i didn't like about this chapter was the fact that Oedipa cheated on her husband this seemed very terrible and out of place. I didn't know what to make of the chapter but I'm hoping that as I read further into this book I will understand what all the random event and people like the Paranoids have to to with the story.

The Crying of Lot 49: Chapter One

One of the first things I noticed about the book "The Crying Of Lot 49" was the strange names that the author used for some of the characters. For example there is a Dr. Hilarius, I wonder if his name is contrary to his personality. From what I've read, Dr. Hilarius is a strange, dark, questionable kind of man and maybe the author made his name into an irony. Then there is the married couple, Oedipa and Wendell "Mucho" Maas which are both very strange but meaningless names, Except for the fact that their last name seems foreign. Finally there is Oedipa's ex-boyfrind Pierce Inverarity, his first name is relatively common but his last maybe a real word so i will look it up and see if it matches or clashes with his flaky, crazy and at times terrifying personality.

The first chapter is an introductory chapter that lets the reader meet some of the exotic characters in the novel. The structure of some of the sentences is very difficult and made it necesary for me to read over a paragraph several times. The senteces were at times long and seemed to be a list of locations or thoughts and some times were short and maybe even too simple. This added and interesting but confusing twist the the structure of the chapter and kept me attentive to every world the author wrote since they are very connected in this book. I find this reading to be dense with alot of interesting vocabulary and ideas but, I think that as I continue to read, the book will begin to make more sense.

From the very beginning we learn of all the character's quirks and unique traits. Oedipa feels trapped in her world with an over-sensitive boyfriend and a now dead and crazy ex-boyfriend. The fact that she has to go to the psychaitrist tells the reader that she is slightly unstable and Pierce is a very good explanation for this mental instablility. Pierce was a very strange and seemingly messed up man, Oedipa used to recieve crazy phone calls from him screeching in different voices and cursing her husband with "the shadow". He was very rich but didn't seem sensible and now even after his death Oedipa still has to be haunted by him since she needs to execute his will. Oedipa's husband is a weak, easily moved man. He appears to be a nice guy but is too sensitive that sometimes it frustrates Oedipa. All the characters in this novel are strange and I have yet to discover more and establish new and even more intricate relationships. I wonder how long Oedipa was with Pierce, this would explain why she was on his will even after they had ended.

Inverarity: not a word just Pierce's last name.

Codicil: Is like a foot note or an addition that explains or modifies a will or part of one.

Ambiguity: doubtfulness or confusion about a meaning or intention.