Direction? Point?

Throughout the short pages of chapter six and seven, I frequently asked myself, where is this book headed? What is the author trying to prove or tell with this story? Is there any point at all? I feel that the author is just bringing ridiculous characters into Candide's life, and then killing them off in different ways, after they become useless and no longer part of the story. Poor Candide has been whipped quite alot, and hasn't had the greatest fortunes after Cunegonde kissed him. The author seems very focused on the act of killing, and the process as well. He seems to enjoy new ways of inventing grotesque endings for the pitiful people in his book.

Now, after Candide has been whipped once more, and his fellow companions killed, he is approached by yet another interesting figure. This time an old woman is kind to him, and brings him to a place to rest and eat. Will she turn out to be killed as well? After a couple days of experiencing kindness, Candide is brought into the presence of the - no way - dead Cunegonde. The lovers have a moment of strength loss, and then, recovering from the shock, they ask eachother what had happened since the last time they had seen eachother.

The chapter ends with the beginning of Cunegonde's story... however, I am still asking myself where the author is headed in this confusing and seemingly no-point novel. Is there an underlying message that he is trying to slip us between the moments of death and mishap? Perhaps he is trying to tell us that the world isn't one beautiful fairy tale. Whatever he is trying to portray with his novel, I am still clueless and utterly lost. What is the point of the novel, or where are we headed?

Pangloss

Pangloss, who returns in chapter four of Voltaire's Candide, is constantly reasurring his surrounding audience that "private misfortunes contribute to the general good, so that hte more private misfortuens there are, the more we find that all is well" (31). Even when he seems to be dying of AIDS or small pox, which ever disease is interpreted from his long speech, he still has his theory that everything happens because everything is for the best. After a great storm wrecks a city, he still states that things could not be otherwise, "For all this...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 where they are, because everything is for the best" (35).

Here I believe the author is targeting those optimistic people - the viewers of the cup half full - who always say things like "everything happens for a reason" or "it is for the best". However, Pangloss seems pretty much over the top optimistic, I think he is the 'absurd' part of the satire. He seems to have his head high in the clouds, and is not really paying attention to what is going on. When Candide is lying in the streets in agony, he is stating that "This earthquake is nothing new...the town of Lima in America experienced the same shocks last year. The same causes produced the same effects. There is certainly a vein of sulphur running under the earth from Liman to Lisbon" (34). And poor Candide upon hearing this wise piece of information replies kindly and respectively "Nothing is more likely...but oil and wine, for pity's sake!" (34).

Voltaire's Candide

"By all means, gentlemen," (24). These four words gets Candide into way more than the drink he was agreeing to toast to the "most amiable" (24) King's health.

What kind of person is this? Did his mother ever teach him not to talk to strangers? I mean, come on, it is one of the most important lessons of life that gets drilled into your head by the time you say your first word 'mama'!

Seriously, I was at a friend's house, and the baby finally spoke, said 'mama', and everyone screams in unison, 'Don't you ever talk to strangers!' The baby then nodded his head furiously, and we went on to admire and cuddle his cute face.

Next, why didn't he scream or yell 'help' when they "clapped him into irons and hauled him off to the barracks" (23). The second most important lesson in life is to not go anywhere with people you don't know, aka strangers. I mean, this is an important fact in life! It is so incredibly important, that you can't even go with strangers who offer you candy, much less help people find their puppy dog. Forrest Gump has this lesson down perfectly. His first day of school, he exersiced his wisdom by refusing to board the bus, because, of course, the bus lady was a stranger. After he introduced himself, and she introduced herself, it was okay though, because they weren't strangers anymore, and he proceeded to board the bus.

This Candide guy really is quite ridiculous. Like honestly, did he really believe that they (the normal and sane people) thought Free Will was for real? Of course it is just one of those crazy things you read in fiction books!-- like Unicorns and Draggons and Decision Making. He is so funny! Making comments about Free Will, and "say[ing] he wanted neither; he had to make his choice" (24). Maybe the heat was getting to him or something, because we all know that nobody ever 'chooses' anything. Epictetus would be shocked out of his toga - or whatever fad was 'new' back in his day.

The only people in this chapter who have any sense, were the very generous and kind, who granted his request of being beheaded. Of course he wasn't actually beheaded, the King of Burglars had enough mercy on the dim-witted Candide to pardon his terrible and unforgiveable crime. I mean, seriously, this King guy must be some amazing hero, to have enough patience for a criminal like Candide. Would you?

Introductions:

In the first chapter of Voltaire's Candide, several figures are presented to us.

First, we make the acquaintence of a young boy named Candide. He is named Candide, because apparently, his character could be read by his face. "He combined sound judgement with unaffected simplicity" (19). We are led to believe that he is the most important in this novel, because he was introduced first. Because this book is a Satire, I wonder how, and who, the author is making fun of.

Secondly, we are made aware of the Baron and the Baroness. Back then, to be fat was a sign of wealth. So, the fat Baroness was obviously a "great imporance, [and] entertained with a dignity which won her still more respect" (19). The poor Baron isn't presented with this kind of introduction, the author just talks about his dogs, and windows, and halls.

The daughter of the Baron and Baroness was named Cunégonde and is apperently quite pretty.

Pangloss, the tutor of Cunégonde's brother, was much admired by Candide.

Candide was brought up in a beautiful country house, however a certain mistake of his gets him kicked out. After kissing Cunégonde, he is thrown out of the splendid country house, and driven away.

This was a short, and quick to the point chapter, filled with a couple characters and a poor boy being thrown out of his child hood home.

What will happen in the next chapter? Will Cunégonde and Candide fall deeply in love, and then Candide will come back to win his fair lady's heart?

Since this is a Satire, I think it will most likely end badly. It probably is making fun of the fairy taile Alladin. Candide is probably Alladin, Pangloss might be the Genie, and Cunégonde would be the princess.

Don't Get 'Siked?

Epictetus has many theories about life, and what you should do or not do in certain situations. However, when Epictetus states that "For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that. Otherwise you will come to it enthusiastically at first, since you have not borne in mind any of what will happen next, but later when difficulties turn up you will give up disgracefully" (sec. 29). Anne Shirley, from the book "Anne Of Green Gables" would have had a couple things to tell Epictetus. According to her, half of the fun of things is the looking-forward-to-it part. In all of the books of Anne Shirley, she is always getting let down, but she does seem to enjoy looking forward to things, and expecting alot of greatness from events. Although she is dissapointed sometimes, other times she does have great things happen to her. So, in this situation I would have to 'agree' with Anne, that life is alot better when you look forward to things, even if you are let down sometimes. So, get 'siked.

To: Robert Frost From: Epictetus

Dear Robert Frost,

I have just recently read your poem and find it quite an interesting approach to life. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood" you stated, meaning you had a choice of either option (a) in your life or option (b).

I personnally believe you are talking about a choice you need to make for your future. Something that will impact you so greatly, that if you make the 'wrong decision' you will always wonder what would have been the turn out if you had chosen the other 'road'.

However, I want to make the point to tell you that even if you did make the 'wrong decision,' it would be up to you whether or not it upsets you. Because, "what upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about the things" (sec. 5 Epictetus).

Also, you never really had a decision to make at all. You were always going to choose the road you chose, so there is no reason to fret about the "road not taken". I have a few adjustments to your poem, according to my philosophies. I believe this will make everything much clearer to you...

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

and knowing I was supposed to go down one,

I walked with confidence towards the one that made the most sense.

Knowing that whatever I chose,

I was always supposed to choose, and it isn't anything to fret about.

I shall be telling this tranquilly,

sometime ages and ages hence.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --

I took the one I was always going to choose,

and now here I am where I was always going to be.

Yes, it may not sound quite as romantic as yours, but it is much more logical.

Yours sincerely,

Epictetus

Hypocrites and Broken Cups

I think that section 26 of the Handbook of Epictetus is pretty much telling us not to be hypocrites. Or, to just remember how we would handle a situation, if the situation had not actually happened to us. Epictetus gives us an example of what he means when he states "when someone else's little slave boy breaks his cup we are ready to say, 'It's one of those things that just happen.' Certainly, then, when your own cup is broken you should be just the way you were when the other person's was broken" (sec. 26).

I think that this often happens in day-to-day occurences. For example, if a friend of mine has gotten a bad grade on a test, I would console them by saying something like "Don't worry, you'll do better next time." However, when I myself get a bad grade, I would be more likely to grumble and wish I had studied harder, instead of looking ahead in a positive manner. So, I think the point that Epictetus is trying to make is that when something disagreeable happens to us, we should try to view it in the same light we would if it had happened to someone else.

Manners

Some interesting advice I received from Epictetus was that "you must behave as you do at a banquet" (sec. 15). At a banquet, when the dish comes around, you are supposed to politely extend your hand, and take what has been offered. You shouldn't turn your head, and refuse to take what is beeing served, because then you would go hungry, and have nothing to eat. However, you shouldn't rush forward, and quickly grab everything on the platter, because you would be too full to take whatever else comes along. In life, you could apply this by saying always take a little bit of what comes your way. If you were to not accept what has been offered to you, then you may regret it in the future. Yet if you take everything, then you won't have time, or you may overlook, something better.

Judgment

According to Epictetus, "What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgements about the things" (sec. 5). The example he gives here is death. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but our judgement somehow depicts it as dreadful. I think that this is a very interesting point of view. I also think that there are many things we can see from different angles, and depending on whichever angle you are looking at it from, it can either be good, bad or somewhere in between. For example, if you drop your doughnut on the floor, you can either see it as a waste of money, or you can see it as you were just saved a couple of extra calories. It all depends on your point of view.

My Beliefs vs. The Handbook of Epictetus (intro)

As I was reading the first few pages of the introduction of the Handbook of Epictetus, I felt as if I was reading Portuges. Almost nothing was really hitting and staying, it was all pretty much just washing over me. Then, suddenly, I am not sure where, I realized Epictetus seemed to have similar views on life as did the Tralfamadorians in Slaughter House Five. They also believed that humans have pretty much no say in what happens to them. "Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well" (2). This was Epictetus' view on the best possible condition a mere human could have. Likewise, the Tralfamadorians told Billy in Slaughter House Five that things happen, because they were meant to happen, have happened, and always will happen.

The early and late Stoics recommended that instead of trying to change the world, make your desires fall "in line with the way the external world actually is" (3). They agreed amongst themselves that the way to create this state of mind, is by realizing everything that occurs in the external world, is determined by previous states of the "universe as a whole" (3).

I however do not believe that the Stoics way of living is very good at all. I think that if you want to change the way your life is, you can. You may not necessarily be able to control your situation entirely, yet you can make your life have the best outcome possible. I think you should be able to set your goals, or your standards higher than possible, and then strive to achieve them.

Also, I believe that a greater power is in charge of everything. I personally believe that God knows what is going to happen, and wants what is best for us. However, it is all up to our personal decisions to determine what is going to happen.

A slogan of the Stoic ethics states that "Nothing is good except moral virtue" (7). I do not believe this, because according to my faith in the Bible, God created everything, and after creating the entire universe he said that it was 'good'. By giving us free-will, letting us decide what to do, we are given the option of choosing good or evil. The evil in the world is from us when we do not follow in God's ways and teachings. Our choices determine the future outcomes of our lives, and effect everyone around us.

"Poo-tee-weet?"

The last words of Slaughter House Five are "Poo-tee-weet?" (275). This however, is no surprise to us, because from the very beginning, we were told how the book would end. "This one is a failure, and had to be, since it was written by a pillar of salt. It begins like this: Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. It ends like this: Poo-tee-weet?" (28).

One might ask, why end with a bird chirp? What does it have to do with the horror of the bombing of Dresden, the soldiers, the muck and the waisted amount of life?

I believe that when the author wrote Poo-tee-weet, he meant it as a symbol, a symbol that no matter what awful things humans do to eachother, life will go on. Nature's life cycles are not affected by human's desolation. Things will get better, and go on as before, people will eventually forget about past horrors, and move on to in-the-moment little problems.

Life is simple. Nature is pure. And birds will sing, even after fire has consumed an entire city.

Chapter 9

When Billy's wife Valencia dies, I felt that it was all kind of sudden, and the author just wanted to 'get rid of her'. Poor thing, she hears that her husband's plane has crashed, and then survives a crash of her own, with a mercedes vehicle, only to be overcome by carbon monoxide, and die. Why was she killed so suddenly? It is kind of interesting that Billy survives, but she dies. Her death doesn't seem to effect Billy at all. He seems completely focused on telling the world about Tralfamadorians. Why has this suddenly become the number one thing on his list? It wasn't very important before the plane crash.

In the hospital, he meets a man named Rumfoord. Billy tells Rumfoord that he was there, when Dresden was bombed. Will Rumfoord be reintroduced in the last chapter of Slaughter House Five? He was brought in suddenly, and then taken out just as quickly. Did he have any significance? Or was he a mere filler?

Billy then takes a secret trip to New York. He slips out while his nurse isn't looking, and tries to find a to broadcast his Tralfamadorian news. How does he think he will convince the world that Tralfamadorians exist? Why does he think this is so important? How will he explain the difficult concept of time, that the Tralfamadorians propose?

At the end of the chapter, Billy travels in time back to Tralfamadore. He is talking with Montana, who has born him a son. The author doesn't give us any information on his son, I wonder why that is. Is he merely not important?

Anyways, Montana seems to be bored with the conversation that she and Billy are having. I wonder how Billy gets off of Tralfamadore. Does he simply just leave Montana and his son there?

Once again, a prayer from earlier in the book is brought into the story. Around Montana's neck is a locket with the engraved words of "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference."

Why does the author bring this prayer into the book, again?

Dresden Is Bombed

When I read that everything in Dresden was bombed, and burned, and that there were practically no survivors, I asked myself, why did they target Dresden, which had no connection with the war at all? They did not house any World War II soldiers. They didn't produce weapons for the nazis. They didn't have an army base, either. Why did the Americans target Dresden? Why not some city that was more important? Some place that would have had an impact on the war, instead of just killing civilians?
The author states that "American fighter planes came in under the smoke to see if anything was moving" (230). They must have known that they would just be killing civilians, "The idea was to hasten the end of the war" (230) but what good would it do to kill innocent people in a city that wasn't threatening anything? Click here for an article about the bombing of Dresden.

Plane Crash

In chapter 7, Billy gets onto a chartered airplane with his crude father-in-law, who enjoys disgusting songs from the war. Somehow, Billy knows that the plane will crash, and that he and the copilot will be the only survivors. I think that he is still looking into the past, and his knowledge of what he knew then has been confused.
Before the plane crashes, Billy timetravels into 1944, and Roland Weary is shaking him, trying to get him to keep going. Does this have a double meaning? Maybe, since he is about to have a near-death experience, his memory goes back to his other near-death experience, when he almost froze to death.
After the plane crashes he is rescued by two Germans. Having suffered a a fracture to the skull, he was slightly dishelved, and didn't know where he was. Thinking that he was still in World War Two, he whispered his address to the German, "Schlachthof-funf" (199). It is interesting that his rescuers just so happened to be German, and that he said his World War II address in their language. Is this an important fact? Or mere information?
After being brought down Sugarbush Mountain on a toboggan, he was taken to a hospital. The author specifies that he went to a hospital that was private, and was operated on by a famous brain surgeon. I think that he specified that the surgeon was famous, and the hospital was private, to make it seem that he was completely normal afterwards, and there was no possibility of him having any brain damage at all.

Schlachthof-funf and a bit of Foreshadowing

In chapter six, Lazzaro has sworn to have the Englishman who punched him killed after the war. This also leads to Lazzaro stating matter-of-factly that he would also have Billy killed. Billy agrees, unconcerned, that this is a true statement of how he will die in the future. I find it quite interesting that Billy knows how he is going to die, and is pretty content with the outcome. Moving on, Lazzaro, Derby and Pilgrim all join the rest of the Americans in the theater. An Englishman gives a speach about hygene, which none of them take seriously at all. After the Englishman had given his lecture, he states, ironically, that he is envious of the American's opportunity to go to Dresden. He describes it as a beautiful city. This is ironic, because Dresden will be bombed later on, and turned into a disastrous and wrecked city. A product of the war.

When it was time to go to Dresden, all of the Americans felt pretty content. They were able to hold their food, and apparently, Dresden was very safe from the War. According to Edgar Derby's imagined letters to home, Dresden would never be bombed. Irony, once again.

The author then uses the colors "blue and ivory" (188) to describe the feet of the dead hobo. Somebody had taken his shoes, and he was "nestling with thin air and cinders", seeing as no one else was there. Does this possibly have a significance? Blue and ivory seems to be a favorite description, that the author uses frequently. In chapter four, Billy's own feet are described as ivory and blue. Perhaps this is also foreshadowing.

When the American soldiers arrive in Dresden, they are met with soldiers as pitiful as themselves. After being brought to their new 'home', their are told to remember their address, in case they ever lost in the big city. "Schlachthof-funf" (195), or in English, Slaughter House Five.

Billy's Past Becomes Jumbled To Himself

In the later half of the chapter, the author writes "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book" (160). So we are left to believe that, like the first chapter had stated, "All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway..." (1). However, how much is actually true? The author keeps following Billy's crazy "timetravels", and it is getting more and more confusing. Is he just dreaming? But if he is, how does he know that Edgar Derby is going to die? Also, how does he keep going into the future, and then the past? Is he just imagining the future? Or is it all really going to happen in his life?

Suddenly, we are swung back into 1968, and his daughter Barbara was talking to him. She had just asked him if he heard what she had said. Perhaps, after surviving the plane crash, his brain had been slightly damaged. So, when remembering the past, he added bits and pieces, until he forgot what was real, and what was unreal. It may be, that when he was thinking of the past, certain memories were meshed with dreams and also the future.
Although he had not yet experienced certain things, or even known what was going to happen, this story may be being told by his knowledge of his life in 1968. Therefore, he had already experienced the death of Edgar Derby, and therefore believed that before Edgar Derby's death he had known what was going to occur. I found a blog which explains my theory quite well. Click here to read the blog.

Billy is Dreaming

In chapter four, I believe I have found evidence that when Billy 'timetravels' he is actually just dreaming. For example, on his daughters supposed wedding night, he was jiggled to sleep by Magic Fingers. This jiggling could be the rocking and movement of the boxcar he is locked in, as the train moves slowly down the track. Also, it makes a refrence to the "gaily striped tent in Billy's backyard" (91), in which the wedding had taken place. The tent had been striped with the colors of orange and black. Interestingly enough, the locomotive and the last car of each train he had seen, had been "marked with a striped banner of orange and black, indicating that the train was not fair game for airplanes - that it was carrying prisoners of war" (88).
The next example that supports the theory of his dreaming, are the words ivory and blue. Supposedly, after Billy gets out of bed to go meet the Tralfamadorians, he looks down at his bare feet, and they are described as ivory and blue. Later on in the chapter, after Billy's boxcar door is opened, the author delineates Billy "lying at an angle on the corner brace, self crucified, holding himself there with a blue and ivory claw hooked over the sill ventilator" (101). Was it just a coincidence that these two depictions should be exactly the same? I think not. I believe that whenever Billy is experiencing pain or discomfort in life, he dreams himself into a different, more interesting world, in order to comfort or cope with the situation. Although he seems to have no control over his "timetravels" I think that his brain uses certain things that had attracted his attention earlier in his experiences, to play out a story in his head.

Christianity

In chapter 3, we have three refrences to christianity. First, in the beginning of the chapter, Billy sees Adam and Eve in the golden reflection of the German corporal's boots. He refers to them being "so innocent, so vulnerable, so eager to behave decently" (53). I think that this shows much of Billy's own innoncence, and the way he thinks. He views their innocent beings as beautiful, and loves them for it. However, when he 'time travels' or imagines being in 1967, a prayer on Billy's wall displays the prayer "God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference" (60). The author then states that although this was his encouragement that kept him going, he was unenthusiastic about living. This statement confused me. If he used this prayer to encourage him, then why is he unhappy with living? Is it maybe hinting that Billy is trying to change things he cannot change, and doesn't have the wisdom to know the difference between the changeable, and unchangeable? However this thought is erased by the next sentence which states "among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future" (60). Perhaps this is why he is so unenthusiastic about living, because he has no hope for what lies ahead of him.
The third reference to christianity, or religion, is when Billy Pilgrim is back in World War II, on the train as it slowly started to head eastward. The author says that "somewhere in there was Christmas" (71). Billy does not seem to feel anything about it being Christmas day. He did not seem to feel sad or lonely about being unable to celebrate Christmas. Infact, he does not even seem to recognize it being Christmas day at all.

Listen:

Billy Pilgrim is now introduced to us in chapter two of Slaughter House Five. I am a little baffled after reading that he has “walked through a door in 1955 and come out another one in 1941”(23). Thinking at first that he must just be having flashbacks, after reading that he goes back through another door, and finds himself in 1963, I conclude that you can’t exactly have ‘flashbacks’ into the future. After being walked through Billy’s life, being born in 1922, his “honorable discharge from the Army in 1945” (24), to his promulgation of having become unstuck in time in 1967. I have to come to the same conclusion as his daughter, Barbara, that Billy has gone crazy. The Tralfamadorians completely tipped the scale on whether or not he was sane or not. Plus, after discovering that he was working on a letter in his freezing cold basement wearing pajamas and no socks, I do think he might have been hit a little too hard in the head somewhere during his World War II adventures.
After reading a thought of Billy’s, I wonder truly at how far his imagination has gone. He is struck by the thought “ what a Tralfamadorian adventure with death that had been, to be dead and to eat at the same time” (31). What is he talking about? Where they really dead?
When we are guided through Billy’s first experiences with the army, I feel bad for his pitiful character. Being bullied by Weary, and having to deal with the cold, and hunger, no wonder Billy has turned out believing he has been abducted by aliens! Then, shockingly, Billy dies and then is swung back into life, only years earlier, first as a baby, before birth, then as a boy in the YMCA with his father.
Really, Billy has only been dreaming, after having passed out from the cold and hunger, and is then shaken awake by Roland Weary, who had come back for him. Billy and Roland then get ditched by the rest of their company, who obviously had put up with their ridiculous actions long enough. Then, the chapter ends with the entrance of Germans, and the question why Billy would laugh while being kicked by Weary. Obviously he has cracked.

"All This Happened"...really?

This book, Slaughter House Five, is all about big impressions. First of all, it starts out, "All this happened, more or less" (1). Then it goes on to tell us about how a teapot-thief was actually shot, how there were threats of killings by hired gunmen, old war buddies, and how it would be a great idea to write a book about Dresden. Well, we are left in a whirlwind of confusion, trying to discern where this author is trying to lead us. He then introduces us to a song, which also leaves us wondering, is there any importance in this? Is he trying to give as a foreshadowing of some major event later on?
Reading on, I wondered what kind of person this author really was? He protrayed through his writing a crude and disgusting personality. Telling us of his drinking, and how he was a 'reporter' and what he would report. As he was taking us through his life story, I asked my self if this is what the book was about...his life.
Coming to a conclusion, I decided that the author was stuck on the idea of writing about the wierd, and horrible parts of life. Like how "the Germans had made soap and candles out of the fat of dead Jews" (4). Bracing myself for more disgusting details about World War II, I read on about his visit with his war buddy, and how the 'children's crusades' brings on another horiffic story from Germany and France.
Finally, the chapter ends abruptly after some more talk of massacres, and an interesting statement, that this book "is a failure" (8). Instead of writing 'would be' or 'is going to be', he writes it in the present, which somehow captivated my attention. It may be nothing, or it may be something, but he goes on to write that the book was written by a pillar of salt, leaving us wondering if that also bares some significance. Maybe is he trying to tell us that he is looking back, like Lot's wife, to something dreadful? Then, to top off our confused minds, he ends the chapter with a simple statement of how the book will end, with the words "Poo-tee-weet" (8).