I finished this play and the first thing that came to my mind was boredom. I remember mentioning this in my first blog about Uncle Vanya where boredom seemed as a key factor in the development of this play. In fact, Voinistky ends up reacting in a violent way after the energy that had been bottled up for the lack of work exploded outwards. Some people may argue that what made Voinistky react was the fact that he had dedicated his entire life to Aleksandr and he had received nothing in return; however, I oppose because if Voinistky had continued on working for the estate as he did in his previous days, he wouldn’t of had noticed that Aleksandr was really a bad literate. It is because Vanya had so much negative energy inside of him that he finally erupted. With this aspect of boredom in mind, I believe that the author wanted (really) to depict the image of what a utopia would be for some people. Well, many might argue that in a utopia you wouldn’t work, because everything that is there to do is already done. This idea of a utopia was demonstrated by Chekhov in its most sensationalist way, where boredom (taking over) ends up causing the exact opposite reaction (violence) to the alleged peace that the utopia would have. When I realized this (if it is true) I felt connected to the author because I basically depicted what I more or less though of a utopia (perfection leading to boredom).
I’d like to quote a small speech given by Uncle Vanya in the play which I thought alluded to the world in which we live with great exactitude:
"Strange. I attempt to commit a murder, and they don’t arrest me, don’t bring me to trial, which means that they consider me insane. [With a bitter laugh] I am insane, but those who conceal their lack of talent, their stupidity, their utter heartlessness under the guise of a professor, a learned sage—they are not insane. People are not insane who marry old men and then openly deceive them. I saw you, I saw you with your arms around her!" (216).
In this quote Voinistky mentions that even though he tried to commit a murder, nobody cares right now for the fact that they believe he is insane. But then he starts mentioning a list of characteristics in other people who he questions if they are insane. Insane in the way that they hide their real life, their real character, they hide their true identity. I myself thought of this as a true occurrence, where the people who secretly (and openly) despise life and the things they have in it should be considered insane to the upmost degree. I openly agree with Chekov’s point of view in this aspect.
This is For Me, This is For Me and This is For You --Vanya III
“But I understand so little of all this …” (201). Elena to Astrov said this when he was explaining her about his forest projects. Astrov then gets annoyed at the fact that Elena apparently doesn’t pay much attention to what he says. This seemed weird due to the fact that ever since the play started, I have noticed that the characters react to what other characters say in odd ways, as if they weren’t listening to their dialogue partner. In act one for example, Astrov begins speaking to Marina about his life, but Marina, instead of commenting about it, she simply keeps on offering the doctor something to eat or drink. She seems uninterested by what Astrov has to say about his life as a doctor. Naturally, people react more interested and excited to what others have to say when they have been absent for such long periods of time, like the doctor and the nurse. Eventually, still during the same conversation, Marina, when the fact that Astrov wants nothing to drink or eat, responds to what the doctor said about him killing a patient due to the fact that he was drunk in a calm serene way. She even offers him Vodka later in the play knowing that he is an alcoholic who has come to treat her employer Aleksandr. As a reader, if I had been in the same situation, I would have tried to keep Astrov from the booze while he is in the estate. The fact that the characters apparently pay little attention to what the others have to say is a very similar situation to the communication between humans in the present. Messages are constantly manipulated or miscarried from mouth to mouth. This event has been perfected as time has passed; however it is still not perfect. Back in Chekhov’s days, communication issues may have been even greater to the extent that he saw pertinent to illustrate this through the use of words in this play, Uncle Vanya.
Unequal distribution of land is probably the biggest aspect treated in this act by the author. Uncle Vanya tolerates the fact that he has absolutely nothing to do, but when he is told that Aleksandr planned to sell the estate in which he had worked his chops off to maintain, he explodes in violence: “The estate is free from debt and in good condition only because of my personal efforts. And now that I’ve grown old, I’m to be kicked out!” (208). This is basically an allusion made by the author about the apparent inequalities that the capitalistic society in which we live has built. He demonstrates how people, do everything to conserve what land is theirs to the extent that they are willing to commit murder to salvage what they have. This violent reaction is seen throughout the history of mankind, where revolutions are created as a consequence of the inequalities of society (the French Revolution for example). This revolution was created by the despotism of the king towards his people. To a certain extent, it can be interpreted as a consequence of the inequalities that the king held in comparison to his people, and how he did nothing to narrow down this gap.
Unequal distribution of land is probably the biggest aspect treated in this act by the author. Uncle Vanya tolerates the fact that he has absolutely nothing to do, but when he is told that Aleksandr planned to sell the estate in which he had worked his chops off to maintain, he explodes in violence: “The estate is free from debt and in good condition only because of my personal efforts. And now that I’ve grown old, I’m to be kicked out!” (208). This is basically an allusion made by the author about the apparent inequalities that the capitalistic society in which we live has built. He demonstrates how people, do everything to conserve what land is theirs to the extent that they are willing to commit murder to salvage what they have. This violent reaction is seen throughout the history of mankind, where revolutions are created as a consequence of the inequalities of society (the French Revolution for example). This revolution was created by the despotism of the king towards his people. To a certain extent, it can be interpreted as a consequence of the inequalities that the king held in comparison to his people, and how he did nothing to narrow down this gap.
A Changing Society? --Vanya Act II
As I started reading the second act of the play Uncle Vanya, I realized of an allusion that the author apparently makes about humanity (applying this text to the present world). In our society, our race has created facilities where the old-aged humans are taken care of daily by nurses who, most of the time, have no relationship with the family of the old being. Chekhov successfully depicts how the old become such an unbearable burden (allegedly) to the youth that surrounds it: “But wait a bit, soon I shall set you all free. I shan’t drag on much longer” (178). In this play, everyone is exhausted due to the fact that they have been taking special care of Aleksandr, an old man who apparently sits day and night in his room writing and thinking about life. As a reader, I don’t understand how taking care of an old man who apparently has little to no social activity in his life could be exhausting. The author could be simply demonstrating the burden that elders are for their younger family members, or he could be mocking the laziness and inconsideration of families by sending their old family members to retirement houses.
“A woman can become a man’s friend only in this sequence: first an acquaintance, then a mistress, and then a friend” (185). What is the author trying to say about women, or men in this sentence? In my opinion this order could be first an acquaintance, then a friend, and last a mistress, but never a mistress before than a friend. I was really perplexed when I read this expression, I had never thought of a woman in this way, and I had never heard someone refer to one as such. In a sense, Chekhov might be trying to express the importance of a friendship. The author may be saying that having a love life doesn’t necessarily mean that your relationship with that person is intimate and valuable; however, a friendship is always when this relationship turns to be an intimate relationship held together by trust. When this trust is incorporated in a relationship, according to the author, it becomes a friendship, whether is incorporates intercourse or it doesn’t.
As I kept on reading, I encountered an even more stunning expression than the one above: “As a rule I get drunk like this once a month… I don’t stop at anything! I undertake the most difficult operations and do them beautifully; I draw up the most far-reaching plans for the future…” (186). This expression, applied to the present day fits perfectly when speaking of people who state that when they are drunk or high on drugs they feel enlightened; although there are few people who state this, this expression will fit them completely in a mocking sense, well, no surgeon can perform an operation drunk, without killing his/her patient. Some people may argue, however, that Astrov did feel sorry and moral stricken for killing a patient under the effects of chloroform as a consequence of being drunk. But he never intended to perform a surgery on that patient, while he mentions that he did perform surgeries when being drunk in this quote. Seen in another perspective, Chekhov might have been trying to reflect through this character that although he is most of the time drunk, and he performs surgeries drunk, people don’t seem to care. This reminds me of a book I recently read called Slaughterhouse-Five where Vonnegut mocks the fact that people despise a robot for his halitosis and not for the fact that he had dropped napalm on other people.
“A woman can become a man’s friend only in this sequence: first an acquaintance, then a mistress, and then a friend” (185). What is the author trying to say about women, or men in this sentence? In my opinion this order could be first an acquaintance, then a friend, and last a mistress, but never a mistress before than a friend. I was really perplexed when I read this expression, I had never thought of a woman in this way, and I had never heard someone refer to one as such. In a sense, Chekhov might be trying to express the importance of a friendship. The author may be saying that having a love life doesn’t necessarily mean that your relationship with that person is intimate and valuable; however, a friendship is always when this relationship turns to be an intimate relationship held together by trust. When this trust is incorporated in a relationship, according to the author, it becomes a friendship, whether is incorporates intercourse or it doesn’t.
As I kept on reading, I encountered an even more stunning expression than the one above: “As a rule I get drunk like this once a month… I don’t stop at anything! I undertake the most difficult operations and do them beautifully; I draw up the most far-reaching plans for the future…” (186). This expression, applied to the present day fits perfectly when speaking of people who state that when they are drunk or high on drugs they feel enlightened; although there are few people who state this, this expression will fit them completely in a mocking sense, well, no surgeon can perform an operation drunk, without killing his/her patient. Some people may argue, however, that Astrov did feel sorry and moral stricken for killing a patient under the effects of chloroform as a consequence of being drunk. But he never intended to perform a surgery on that patient, while he mentions that he did perform surgeries when being drunk in this quote. Seen in another perspective, Chekhov might have been trying to reflect through this character that although he is most of the time drunk, and he performs surgeries drunk, people don’t seem to care. This reminds me of a book I recently read called Slaughterhouse-Five where Vonnegut mocks the fact that people despise a robot for his halitosis and not for the fact that he had dropped napalm on other people.
Work, Work, Work, Will You Ever End, Please Don't --Vanya Act I
“Come now, I believe you envy him” (Act I. 198)… “I do envy him!” (Act I,168). Envy is such a powerful feeling against someone. Feeling envious about another person may result in the killing of that person, or in even worse, the torture of another. In the book The Count of Montecrist for example, Dante seems to have everything in his life, but the envy that Danglars and Ferdinand feel against him lure them into torturing him by messing completely his life. Now, since Vanya feels this way against the old professor Serebyakov it makes me think that he will probably due something. The professor is now sick, so he may take advantage of this situation, and kill him and then blame the sickness which apparently is gout.
From this first act Chekov clearly pictured an image of the life that this people were living. They lived in a countryside in Russia, where everything seemed good, even the harvest; however, the envy and love that characters such as Vanya feel, and the pain and stubbornness that the professor experiences lead to the eventually unbalance of the life of these people. From what I have read, although the characters of this play do insignificant and rather boring chores like taking care of an old man, they feel exhausted. This feeling of tiredness, I believe, is caused by the simple inactivity that Vanya, Elena, Aleksandr, Sonya, and Waffles live. Chekov might want to demonstrate to the working class of Russia what a simple chore-less life may lead to, total desperation. Chekov might want to express how work and having an active life keep you from becoming crazy and sick (working under safe conditions). This play, if interpreted in this form, will actually incentivize hard, tired workers to keep on going.
“A fine day to hang oneself…” (Act I, 172). What is interesting about this is not only the mere fact that the line is left with three points at the end of it (…) incentivizing the possibility that suicide might actually happen, but the fact that the boredom, passion, and envy may actually lead to eventual suicide, strengthening Chekov’s cause, if it is the one mentioned above. This small quote form the play captures so much, due to the fact that it actually presents the possibility of suicide in this calm environment as the one that the characters of this play are living.
Through this first act, Chekov also expressed some communist views against the big, powerful capitalist industries. “…you all recklessly destroy the forests, and soon there will be nothing left on earth. In the same way you recklessly destroy man…” (Act I, 175-176). Through the doctor Astrov, the author represents the proper conservation of Earth (Using only what it is needed); however, Vanya is the Capitalistic pig that doesn’t care about anything but his own satisfaction. Vanya is presented as the bad aggressive character of this play, just like the communists presented the capitalistic profiteers.
From this first act Chekov clearly pictured an image of the life that this people were living. They lived in a countryside in Russia, where everything seemed good, even the harvest; however, the envy and love that characters such as Vanya feel, and the pain and stubbornness that the professor experiences lead to the eventually unbalance of the life of these people. From what I have read, although the characters of this play do insignificant and rather boring chores like taking care of an old man, they feel exhausted. This feeling of tiredness, I believe, is caused by the simple inactivity that Vanya, Elena, Aleksandr, Sonya, and Waffles live. Chekov might want to demonstrate to the working class of Russia what a simple chore-less life may lead to, total desperation. Chekov might want to express how work and having an active life keep you from becoming crazy and sick (working under safe conditions). This play, if interpreted in this form, will actually incentivize hard, tired workers to keep on going.
“A fine day to hang oneself…” (Act I, 172). What is interesting about this is not only the mere fact that the line is left with three points at the end of it (…) incentivizing the possibility that suicide might actually happen, but the fact that the boredom, passion, and envy may actually lead to eventual suicide, strengthening Chekov’s cause, if it is the one mentioned above. This small quote form the play captures so much, due to the fact that it actually presents the possibility of suicide in this calm environment as the one that the characters of this play are living.
Through this first act, Chekov also expressed some communist views against the big, powerful capitalist industries. “…you all recklessly destroy the forests, and soon there will be nothing left on earth. In the same way you recklessly destroy man…” (Act I, 175-176). Through the doctor Astrov, the author represents the proper conservation of Earth (Using only what it is needed); however, Vanya is the Capitalistic pig that doesn’t care about anything but his own satisfaction. Vanya is presented as the bad aggressive character of this play, just like the communists presented the capitalistic profiteers.
All Hail the Human Race, That Will Betray Hereafter! --Final Reaction to Macbeth
After reading Macbeth by Shakespeare I, naturally, love it. It is not only the tragedy itself that catches my attention, but the human nature that it is reflected from Macbeth’s actions. Through Macbeth, Shakespeare is able to depict different sins such as greed, extreme ambition, and betrayal. Shakespeare also makes special allusions to Greek mythology as he evokes The Weïrd Sisters and their ability to foresee the future. In Greek mythology such ability was very praised since knowing your future will enable you to take it into your own hand and manipulate it to your own accord. In some cases, the heroes of Greek mythology heavily relied in the soothsayers in order to slay the monster that awaited them. For example, Perseus was able to slay Medusa thanks to the divine help from the gods and from some soothsayers.
Greek mythology, although it is only manifested through The Weïrd Sisters, it plays a fundamental role in the development of Macbeth as the protagonist of this play. “All hail Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis! ... All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor! … All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!” (Act 1 sc. Iii, 51). Thanks to this prophecy of Macbeth’s destiny, Macbeth, seeing that they spoke the truth, saw that the only way that he could become king was by slaying Duncan. Basically, thanks to The Weïrd Sisters, Macbeth murdered the king to become one himself, and killed many others to ensure his kinship. Macbeth’s decline as a humble, good soldier of the Scottish king began due to the power that was entrusted to him by The Weïrd Sisters (the knowledge of his destiny). Because of this, I could say that Macbeth alone isn’t to blame for the kinship he violently secured, The Weïrd Sisters also deserve part in this. If they hadn’t told Macbeth such a thing, he would of probably become king when the time was fit, and not by his ambition and greed.
Speaking of greed, Shakespeare is able to clearly depict such a human emotion through Macbeth. Clearly, Macbeth isn’t satisfied with being Thane of Cawdor and Glamis for more than a week –no—he has deliberately kill the king. Then, being king himself not enough, he wants to secure his heirs by killing Banquo, his soul companion in battle, due to the fact that The Weïrd Sisters told them that although Banquo was not going to be king, that he will beget kings: “Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none. So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!” (Act 1 sc. Iii 70).
Another yet huge trait of the human nature is treason, betrayal. As I spoke to a friend, I noticed that I had coincided with him about how Shakespeare reflects treason in its purest form (Juan M. Venegas). Macbeth committed the purest, most primitive act of treason that you could commit. Some may argue that the worst case of treason is betraying your wife or country; however, I believe that betraying someone’s trust by killing him is the most indecent betrayal of all. But what shocks me the most is that this play was written nearly 402 years ago, and still we haven’t advanced morally in terms of treason. In the present day we keep seeing every kind of treason, including Macbeth’s one. Not too long ago, a guerrilla leader was savagely betrayed by his personal guards due to their greed. The guards wanted money from the Colombian government, so they decided to kill their boss and collect the ransom for his head.
Finally, after reading this work of literature, I found that humans may have advanced in terms of technology, but in moral aspects, we are still the primitive blood eating, violent race we used to be.
Greek mythology, although it is only manifested through The Weïrd Sisters, it plays a fundamental role in the development of Macbeth as the protagonist of this play. “All hail Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis! ... All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor! … All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter!” (Act 1 sc. Iii, 51). Thanks to this prophecy of Macbeth’s destiny, Macbeth, seeing that they spoke the truth, saw that the only way that he could become king was by slaying Duncan. Basically, thanks to The Weïrd Sisters, Macbeth murdered the king to become one himself, and killed many others to ensure his kinship. Macbeth’s decline as a humble, good soldier of the Scottish king began due to the power that was entrusted to him by The Weïrd Sisters (the knowledge of his destiny). Because of this, I could say that Macbeth alone isn’t to blame for the kinship he violently secured, The Weïrd Sisters also deserve part in this. If they hadn’t told Macbeth such a thing, he would of probably become king when the time was fit, and not by his ambition and greed.
Speaking of greed, Shakespeare is able to clearly depict such a human emotion through Macbeth. Clearly, Macbeth isn’t satisfied with being Thane of Cawdor and Glamis for more than a week –no—he has deliberately kill the king. Then, being king himself not enough, he wants to secure his heirs by killing Banquo, his soul companion in battle, due to the fact that The Weïrd Sisters told them that although Banquo was not going to be king, that he will beget kings: “Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none. So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!” (Act 1 sc. Iii 70).
Another yet huge trait of the human nature is treason, betrayal. As I spoke to a friend, I noticed that I had coincided with him about how Shakespeare reflects treason in its purest form (Juan M. Venegas). Macbeth committed the purest, most primitive act of treason that you could commit. Some may argue that the worst case of treason is betraying your wife or country; however, I believe that betraying someone’s trust by killing him is the most indecent betrayal of all. But what shocks me the most is that this play was written nearly 402 years ago, and still we haven’t advanced morally in terms of treason. In the present day we keep seeing every kind of treason, including Macbeth’s one. Not too long ago, a guerrilla leader was savagely betrayed by his personal guards due to their greed. The guards wanted money from the Colombian government, so they decided to kill their boss and collect the ransom for his head.
Finally, after reading this work of literature, I found that humans may have advanced in terms of technology, but in moral aspects, we are still the primitive blood eating, violent race we used to be.
No, literally Carpe Diem! -- Seize the Day
Now that I have recently finished the book, I now know that Wilhelm doesn’t commit suicide, but he does explodes in an incontrollable cry, where his tears keep dashing out of his eyes without him being able to suck them in. This typical human reaction to the compilation of all the misfortunes that Wilhelm has gone through is explainable with the theory I posed in my previous blog about serenity. Maybe, if Wilhelm had cried constantly by himself every day, he wouldn’t of have exploded when he saw the old man in his coffin and the funeral. “He heard it and sank deeper than sorrow, through torn sobs and cries toward the consummation of his heart’s ultimate need” (114).
The meaning of seize the day/ carpe diem shifted completely to a literal meaning. When I finished this book and read the feedback that the “Chicago Sun—Times” in the back-cover of the book it suddenly hit me the relation between the title and the book itself. Bellow instead of trying to make his characters seize the day in a carpe diem way, he literally seized the day by describing every single detail in it from the moment it starts to the climax of it. He literally captures every moment of it; however, Bellow doesn’t only “seize” any day, he seized Tommy Wilhelm’s day. This awkward relation that the author makes with his book and the famous carpe diem phrase is basically a parody of it, it is an absurd interpretation of it. In a sense, its like interpreting literally the meaning of the phrase “you’re full of crap”.
“the mask of kindness” (90). Once again Bellow does an allusion to human’s discipline. He mentions not only kindness, but the mask of kindness. By it being a mask, it means that kindness is covering the real truth, which, in my interpretation, means being a hypocrite. By mentioning this, the author’s allusion may be towards the “hypocracy” in which humanity lives in, where humans betray and kill people from their own species. This mask of kindness is even shown by Bellow in the book through Dr. Tamkin and how he managed to defraud Wilhelm by investing his money, if he ever did, in the worst commodities of the commodities market. He was wearing the “mask of kindness” the whole time he swindled Wilhelm before he took off with his money.
The meaning of seize the day/ carpe diem shifted completely to a literal meaning. When I finished this book and read the feedback that the “Chicago Sun—Times” in the back-cover of the book it suddenly hit me the relation between the title and the book itself. Bellow instead of trying to make his characters seize the day in a carpe diem way, he literally seized the day by describing every single detail in it from the moment it starts to the climax of it. He literally captures every moment of it; however, Bellow doesn’t only “seize” any day, he seized Tommy Wilhelm’s day. This awkward relation that the author makes with his book and the famous carpe diem phrase is basically a parody of it, it is an absurd interpretation of it. In a sense, its like interpreting literally the meaning of the phrase “you’re full of crap”.
“the mask of kindness” (90). Once again Bellow does an allusion to human’s discipline. He mentions not only kindness, but the mask of kindness. By it being a mask, it means that kindness is covering the real truth, which, in my interpretation, means being a hypocrite. By mentioning this, the author’s allusion may be towards the “hypocracy” in which humanity lives in, where humans betray and kill people from their own species. This mask of kindness is even shown by Bellow in the book through Dr. Tamkin and how he managed to defraud Wilhelm by investing his money, if he ever did, in the worst commodities of the commodities market. He was wearing the “mask of kindness” the whole time he swindled Wilhelm before he took off with his money.
Mt. Despair -- Seize the Day
“…Wilky, don’t start this on me [Dr. Adler]. I have a right to be spared” (42). In this quote, the feelings that the father has towards Wilhelm’s problems are clearly stated. Dr. Alder doesn’t want to entangle into any new financial problems, he says that he has already lived that and that his son should start living independently: “There would be no end to it if I started” (51). The father also fears that if he gives his son a loan, his son will then stick with his dad’s loan for the rest of his pensioned life until he dies. This fear is so overwhelming for Dr. Adler that he doesn’t give Wilhelm a single penny although his son is in great financial stress. Personally, I would help my OWN son in an economic stress situation; however, as soon as he gets just above this situation, I would stop completely from lending him money until he pays even half of what he owns me. This I would do, because it not only gives my struggling son an extra boost in his life to keep on going, but it gives me a better relation with him.
Speaking of this, once Wilhelm even tells his father: “Keep it and enjoy it yourself. That’s the ticket!” (51). The ticket to what? When someone refers to a ticket, I usually think of it as a permission to be or participate in something that no everybody can. Applying this meaning into this quote, I would think of the ticket to death; however, everybody has one spot granted for a thing such as death meaning that death wouldn’t fit my definition of a ticket. Concluding, I ended up thinking of the ticket as the way for Dr. Adler to keep living in the “selfish” way he does, since he is the only one with the permission/ticket for living life the way he does.
“Here was a man, like Rubin, who knew and knew and knew” (56). “Wilhelm, in the city of his birth, was ignorant” (56). “A man like Rubin”, here Bellow compares two low-class workers to each other. Both workers, in accordance to the author, “knew” (I believe) about life due to the harsh experiences that, like most low-class workers, they had lived. Then, he continues to show how the people that come from poor backgrounds in comparison for those who come from wealthier economic backgrounds differ from each other. It is amazing, how the low-class immigrant knew more than Wilhelm who was born in that city. This irony is expressed by the author to demonstrate the reality of the economically unequal society which we have created. This event may also represent the author’s feelings towards the father due to the fact that because of him was that Wilhelm ended up knowing less from his city than the manager. This occurs because while Dr. Adler gives Wilhelm everything he needs when little, he became an ignorant worker, while the suffering low-class worker became fully aware of the city in which he lives in. By showing this, Bellow maybe wanted to state that this will be the same if Wilhelm’s father chooses to lend him money. If he does, probably his son will never fully learn how the world revolves.
I kept on reading when I stumbled with the title as a phrase: “Only the present is real—the here-and-now. Seize the day”(62). Here, the phrase “Seize the day” literally means Carpe Diem. Here the Seize the day of which the author is referring is two makes me think of a big event which is no longer suicide for the fact that Dr. Tamkin is directly referring to doing something that will “stop” time due to its great/positive impacts; however, I predict that the meaning of these three words will change, they will mean something else that is not the figurative meaning which is commonly known, but another meaning, a literal meaning. “At the foot of Mt. Serenity/ Is the cradle to eternity” (71). Taking this small quote out of the context of the book I would like to focus on “Mt. Serenity”. This analogy of serenity and a mountain make sense in every sense. Serenity is always the key factor in doing things well and effective. In the context of this book, when they refer to serenity, I really thought how that applied to Wilhelm, although he thought that this was just bullocks. This makes me remember how in every circumstance the winner is the serene one, the person who manages to bottle up their impulsive actions; however, now that I mentioned the bottling up of the impulsive actions, it makes me think that Bellow might have wanted to highlight I big irony about the effects of being serene. Some may argue, as I previously did, that being serene is the KEY factor for coming out triumphant in many stressful situations. But it is these serenity, this tranquility that keeps on pushing bottled up feeling upward until the person finally exploded and something terrible may turn up happening (in Wilhelm’s case, suicide). Maybe, Bellow might have referred to serenity as a negative thing, meaning that sometimes it is better to relief the pressure inside of you by following your impulsive actions. With this, the author may have done the analogy of a mountain and serenity in order to demonstrate their close relation. When climbing up a mountain, many people end up dying, just like the people who, obviously, commit suicide.
Speaking of this, once Wilhelm even tells his father: “Keep it and enjoy it yourself. That’s the ticket!” (51). The ticket to what? When someone refers to a ticket, I usually think of it as a permission to be or participate in something that no everybody can. Applying this meaning into this quote, I would think of the ticket to death; however, everybody has one spot granted for a thing such as death meaning that death wouldn’t fit my definition of a ticket. Concluding, I ended up thinking of the ticket as the way for Dr. Adler to keep living in the “selfish” way he does, since he is the only one with the permission/ticket for living life the way he does.
“Here was a man, like Rubin, who knew and knew and knew” (56). “Wilhelm, in the city of his birth, was ignorant” (56). “A man like Rubin”, here Bellow compares two low-class workers to each other. Both workers, in accordance to the author, “knew” (I believe) about life due to the harsh experiences that, like most low-class workers, they had lived. Then, he continues to show how the people that come from poor backgrounds in comparison for those who come from wealthier economic backgrounds differ from each other. It is amazing, how the low-class immigrant knew more than Wilhelm who was born in that city. This irony is expressed by the author to demonstrate the reality of the economically unequal society which we have created. This event may also represent the author’s feelings towards the father due to the fact that because of him was that Wilhelm ended up knowing less from his city than the manager. This occurs because while Dr. Adler gives Wilhelm everything he needs when little, he became an ignorant worker, while the suffering low-class worker became fully aware of the city in which he lives in. By showing this, Bellow maybe wanted to state that this will be the same if Wilhelm’s father chooses to lend him money. If he does, probably his son will never fully learn how the world revolves.
I kept on reading when I stumbled with the title as a phrase: “Only the present is real—the here-and-now. Seize the day”(62). Here, the phrase “Seize the day” literally means Carpe Diem. Here the Seize the day of which the author is referring is two makes me think of a big event which is no longer suicide for the fact that Dr. Tamkin is directly referring to doing something that will “stop” time due to its great/positive impacts; however, I predict that the meaning of these three words will change, they will mean something else that is not the figurative meaning which is commonly known, but another meaning, a literal meaning. “At the foot of Mt. Serenity/ Is the cradle to eternity” (71). Taking this small quote out of the context of the book I would like to focus on “Mt. Serenity”. This analogy of serenity and a mountain make sense in every sense. Serenity is always the key factor in doing things well and effective. In the context of this book, when they refer to serenity, I really thought how that applied to Wilhelm, although he thought that this was just bullocks. This makes me remember how in every circumstance the winner is the serene one, the person who manages to bottle up their impulsive actions; however, now that I mentioned the bottling up of the impulsive actions, it makes me think that Bellow might have wanted to highlight I big irony about the effects of being serene. Some may argue, as I previously did, that being serene is the KEY factor for coming out triumphant in many stressful situations. But it is these serenity, this tranquility that keeps on pushing bottled up feeling upward until the person finally exploded and something terrible may turn up happening (in Wilhelm’s case, suicide). Maybe, Bellow might have referred to serenity as a negative thing, meaning that sometimes it is better to relief the pressure inside of you by following your impulsive actions. With this, the author may have done the analogy of a mountain and serenity in order to demonstrate their close relation. When climbing up a mountain, many people end up dying, just like the people who, obviously, commit suicide.
Oh God, Will You Please Liberate Me from My "Perfect" Life?--Seize the Day
“When it came to concealing his troubles, Tommy Wilhelm was not less capable than the next fellow.” (1). With only this small sentence, Bellow tells the reader a huge part of this character’s life. By telling the reader that he “conceals” his troubles, Bellow tells the reader that this person has much to speak of, and that he will eventually explode. I found it amazing how this author was able to do this, to grasp the meaning of intimacy in such as small group of words. The action of keeping your problems to yourself is very common in human beings, and in many cases it has caused people to commit suicide. Due to this fact, I was expecting Tommy Wilhelm to eventually end up his life. Suicide will directly relate to the title of the book Seize the Day, where literally he seized/took the day with him, with his life.
“…out, out, out to attend to business. The getting out had in itself become the chief business” (2). Here the author clearly expresses how business had turned against Wilhelm. Going out had become “the chief business”, this meant that he had nothing to do, that the mere fact of getting out of the hotel and try doing something was basically everything now. This fact also made me speculate on a future suicide to be committed by Wilhelm.
Some people argue that the meaning of the word cynical refers to a person that shows contempt for other people’s actions, or a person who is distrustful or pessimistic. This definition of the word cynical placed in the context given by Bellow “Did Artie love his languages, and live for them, or was he also, in his heart, cynical?”(13), made me think back on the compilation of poems written by T.S. Elliot The Waste Land. In some poems, Elliot without notice changes the language in which he is writing. In previous blogs about this abrupt change of languages, I mentioned that he may be doing this to show contempt; however, it never occurred to me, up till now, that Elliot was cynical, and that he did that because he distrusted the single language Anglo-Saxons. Was Elliot trying to do that? In this sentence given by Bellow, clearly he states that the usage and knowledge of many languages may be just an expression of a cynical person, just like Elliot in the case of The Waste Land.
“Let me out of this clutch and into a different life” (22). This line made me remember about a story I once read which really influenced me. The story was about a little girl who threw all of her problems into a bag, and went of looking for other problems in other bags; however, every other bag was heavier than the other until she found one which was as light as a feather. Then when she opened the bag, to her surprise, the bag had her problems. This story is very true about me. I often get mad at myself for not using my time wisely and pray for another life; however, in the end I remember this girl’s little story, making me realize that I am not the worst.
“Each of those crowns represented a tooth ground to the quick, and estimating a man’s grief with his teeth as two per cent of the total…” (28). Why does Bellow compare such things like teeth and grief. In my opinion, grief would be better expressed by the expression and state of the eyes. You can easily tell by the look in someone eyes if they have been in insomniac, nostalgic, or even stressed. So why would Bellow compare such a thing? Maybe, although this book seems serious, it is a satire about a human’s life and all of its absurdities during one simple day. One absurdity may simply be how Wilhelm easily criticizes the state in which the gentleman sitting besides his father is, while he doesn’t realize how the expressions in his face so easily “unconceal” his troubles.
“…out, out, out to attend to business. The getting out had in itself become the chief business” (2). Here the author clearly expresses how business had turned against Wilhelm. Going out had become “the chief business”, this meant that he had nothing to do, that the mere fact of getting out of the hotel and try doing something was basically everything now. This fact also made me speculate on a future suicide to be committed by Wilhelm.
Some people argue that the meaning of the word cynical refers to a person that shows contempt for other people’s actions, or a person who is distrustful or pessimistic. This definition of the word cynical placed in the context given by Bellow “Did Artie love his languages, and live for them, or was he also, in his heart, cynical?”(13), made me think back on the compilation of poems written by T.S. Elliot The Waste Land. In some poems, Elliot without notice changes the language in which he is writing. In previous blogs about this abrupt change of languages, I mentioned that he may be doing this to show contempt; however, it never occurred to me, up till now, that Elliot was cynical, and that he did that because he distrusted the single language Anglo-Saxons. Was Elliot trying to do that? In this sentence given by Bellow, clearly he states that the usage and knowledge of many languages may be just an expression of a cynical person, just like Elliot in the case of The Waste Land.
“Let me out of this clutch and into a different life” (22). This line made me remember about a story I once read which really influenced me. The story was about a little girl who threw all of her problems into a bag, and went of looking for other problems in other bags; however, every other bag was heavier than the other until she found one which was as light as a feather. Then when she opened the bag, to her surprise, the bag had her problems. This story is very true about me. I often get mad at myself for not using my time wisely and pray for another life; however, in the end I remember this girl’s little story, making me realize that I am not the worst.
“Each of those crowns represented a tooth ground to the quick, and estimating a man’s grief with his teeth as two per cent of the total…” (28). Why does Bellow compare such things like teeth and grief. In my opinion, grief would be better expressed by the expression and state of the eyes. You can easily tell by the look in someone eyes if they have been in insomniac, nostalgic, or even stressed. So why would Bellow compare such a thing? Maybe, although this book seems serious, it is a satire about a human’s life and all of its absurdities during one simple day. One absurdity may simply be how Wilhelm easily criticizes the state in which the gentleman sitting besides his father is, while he doesn’t realize how the expressions in his face so easily “unconceal” his troubles.
Is There 'Sufficient Reason' to Love?--Candide
“Sufficient reason” (29) are a couple of words which I have noticed during the few pages I have read that they are mentioned constantly. It is amazing how these two words reflect so much about our author’s time period and thinking. One of the Enlightenment Era’s most controversial theory was one developed in the Renaissance but carried forward in history. This theory of which I speak of was that of Reason as our true way to knowledge. For this, when Voltaire mentions “sufficient reason”, he directly states, to discard all possible doubts from the reader, that that event is enough to prove his point. For example, when Candide meets Pangloss after being kicked form the castle, Pangloss is in a lamentable state, physically, which make the curious Candide ask Pangloss what was enough to turn him into the state in which he was: “and then enquired into cause and effect, and into the ‘sufficient reason’ that had reduced Pangloss to such a pitiable state” (29).
Then, to my surprise, it was love sheer love what had turned Pangloss into such a state that even Candide, a pupil who will never forget him, didn’t recognize him (28). First, with the “Inamoraty Anonimous” in the novel The Crying of Lot 49 and then in this book with Pangloss I have seen how love isn’t portrayed always as the best feeling tat ends up salvaging the day. Why? Why do these two authors, Voltaire and Pynchon, treat such a “wonderful” feeling in such a way? Were they hurt, or are they just portraying a crude reality of the sufferings one must go through (stress, pain, fear, etc.) due to love? “…I tasted delights of Paradise, and they produce these hellish torments by which you see me devoured. She was infected…” (30). Notice, that Voltaire mentions how for some exquisite minutes of pleasure caused by love, Pangloss has to suffer a horrible disease for days until his death or his health come. Also, speaking of love, I recall when in the first chapter Candide due to his love for Cunégonde ends up being kicked out off the best of all castles. Once again love proves to be painful.
Then, to my surprise, it was love sheer love what had turned Pangloss into such a state that even Candide, a pupil who will never forget him, didn’t recognize him (28). First, with the “Inamoraty Anonimous” in the novel The Crying of Lot 49 and then in this book with Pangloss I have seen how love isn’t portrayed always as the best feeling tat ends up salvaging the day. Why? Why do these two authors, Voltaire and Pynchon, treat such a “wonderful” feeling in such a way? Were they hurt, or are they just portraying a crude reality of the sufferings one must go through (stress, pain, fear, etc.) due to love? “…I tasted delights of Paradise, and they produce these hellish torments by which you see me devoured. She was infected…” (30). Notice, that Voltaire mentions how for some exquisite minutes of pleasure caused by love, Pangloss has to suffer a horrible disease for days until his death or his health come. Also, speaking of love, I recall when in the first chapter Candide due to his love for Cunégonde ends up being kicked out off the best of all castles. Once again love proves to be painful.
This is the Best of Lives…Not!—Candide
Panlgoss is a tutor for the nobles that live in Westphalia in the castle of Thunder-ten-tronckh. Pangloss is specifically a philosopher who follows a philosophy which I find very strange and rather ironic in history. Since our religions have been professed, humans have though, although in a different way, about the world as a place of judgment before going to the true and only paradise where our God awaits. Never have humans preached of this life being paradise; however, Panlgoss the philosopher talks about a world where every event happens for the greater good. He speaks of a world where everything that event in life manifests itself in the best of all possible possibilities in which it could happen. “He [Pangloss] proved incontestably that there is no effect without a cause, and that in this best of all possible worlds…”(20). This philosophy seems absurd when compared with our beliefs and religions of a greater and eternal paradise. Maybe Voltaire, being a philosopher, was mocking the philosophers of that time (XVII century) who believed in this strange philosophy which, due to its beliefs, could be regarded as sheer optimism in the present. Optimism in the fact that every event develops always in the best of all possible outcomes in which the occurrence could have developed. I believe that this philosophy will continue to appear as I read the novel meaning that it is a target of satire which Voltaire already showed its readers.
Then something really characteristic of Voltaire’s character sprung up form the page. The Enlightenment movement of which Voltaire was taking part of came to influence Candide as a person. “Free Will” (24) was one of the most strong and fundamental arguments of which the Enlightenment was based on. “Free Will” where two very significant words that enclose the meaning of rights, in a sense. Voltaire was a noble who ironically enough fought for civil rights. His essays and declarations against the godly monarchs often made him pay the consequences in jail. I believe that this experience influenced enough to break through the pages of Candide. Candied was punished to death, although he was spared, for following his instinct, his right to walk wherever his legs could carry him: “ One fine spring morning he took it into his head to decamp and walked straight off, thinking it a privilege common to man and beast to use his legs when he wanted” (24). After walking not more than a few miles he was restrained by the army (possession of the king) and ripped off of his rights, his Free Will: “It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will and say he wanted neither; he had to make his choice” (24). Then, Voltaire to give his opinion about the suppression of the natural rights by the monarch some humor, he continued to make satirical jokes about how he was “free” to choose how to die: “So, exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet thirty-six times, and survived two floggings” (24). This attack on the king’s power, I think, will again present itself in Candide’s life.
Candide was fighting in the Bulgar army, and the fight ended after a great slaughter. Then Candide, famished, went to beg on the houses of a near village for food. While he was doing this, Voltaire introduces a heavy critique against the hypocrites and the church. Voltaire mentions that Candide, due to the fact that he didn’t answer correctly the minister’s question about the pope, he was shunned and bathed on a big pool of putrid substances; however, the real criticism to the church is that the minister was preaching minutes earlier about charity: “At last he approached a man who had just been addressing a big audience for a whole hour on the subject of charity”(26). Voltaire heavily attacks how the Church abuses of its power, given to her in those times, to brain wash people, well maybe the charity the preacher was talking of was meant to be given to the church. Also, since Voltaire lived during the Enlightenment Era, a period which followed the Renaissance, Voltaire may have been influenced by the new ideologies in which true knowledge was based on facts and reason making him react violently against the church which was corrupt. This was proven with facts. Since the 95 Theses of Martin Luther, people have begun to see the true word of God through the Bible and not through the politically biased interpretations of the church.
Then something really characteristic of Voltaire’s character sprung up form the page. The Enlightenment movement of which Voltaire was taking part of came to influence Candide as a person. “Free Will” (24) was one of the most strong and fundamental arguments of which the Enlightenment was based on. “Free Will” where two very significant words that enclose the meaning of rights, in a sense. Voltaire was a noble who ironically enough fought for civil rights. His essays and declarations against the godly monarchs often made him pay the consequences in jail. I believe that this experience influenced enough to break through the pages of Candide. Candied was punished to death, although he was spared, for following his instinct, his right to walk wherever his legs could carry him: “ One fine spring morning he took it into his head to decamp and walked straight off, thinking it a privilege common to man and beast to use his legs when he wanted” (24). After walking not more than a few miles he was restrained by the army (possession of the king) and ripped off of his rights, his Free Will: “It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will and say he wanted neither; he had to make his choice” (24). Then, Voltaire to give his opinion about the suppression of the natural rights by the monarch some humor, he continued to make satirical jokes about how he was “free” to choose how to die: “So, exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet thirty-six times, and survived two floggings” (24). This attack on the king’s power, I think, will again present itself in Candide’s life.
Candide was fighting in the Bulgar army, and the fight ended after a great slaughter. Then Candide, famished, went to beg on the houses of a near village for food. While he was doing this, Voltaire introduces a heavy critique against the hypocrites and the church. Voltaire mentions that Candide, due to the fact that he didn’t answer correctly the minister’s question about the pope, he was shunned and bathed on a big pool of putrid substances; however, the real criticism to the church is that the minister was preaching minutes earlier about charity: “At last he approached a man who had just been addressing a big audience for a whole hour on the subject of charity”(26). Voltaire heavily attacks how the Church abuses of its power, given to her in those times, to brain wash people, well maybe the charity the preacher was talking of was meant to be given to the church. Also, since Voltaire lived during the Enlightenment Era, a period which followed the Renaissance, Voltaire may have been influenced by the new ideologies in which true knowledge was based on facts and reason making him react violently against the church which was corrupt. This was proven with facts. Since the 95 Theses of Martin Luther, people have begun to see the true word of God through the Bible and not through the politically biased interpretations of the church.
“The Lie” by Coraghessan Boyle--Rest in Pieces
When I was in the process of reading this short story by Coraghessan, I felt that I was in a moment living, absently, the life of Lonnie. Coraghessan manages to describe every scene and emotion in few but precise words. “…hardened as they climbed from my shoetops to my face, where they rested like two balls of granite” (Coraghessan). The expression “balls of granite” fully describe the look of Clover, staring heavily into Lonnie’s eyes. Personally, I liked the author’s descriptions due to the fact that he limited himself to the usage of few words, keeping the reader always focused due to the rapid change of events.
Passing on to my real interpretation of the text I am obliged to say that this story took me by surprise. At first, as I read along, I thought to myself that this was a very simple short story where its plot was easily deciphered. Lonnie was just a average man exhausted from his monotonous work, having as a consequence he inventing lies of any kind to skip work: “If I could make it to the weekend, I was sure that by Monday, Monday at the latest, whatever was wrong with me, this feeling of anger, hopelessness, turmoil, whatever it was, would be gone” (Coraghessan). As a reader I new from the instant that Lonnie had invented to skip work that his only child had died, that he was eventually going to get caught somehow by his wife or boss (Radko); however, the end suddenly hit me, I was never expecting it, I thought of the end just being a bad dream or just that the story continues, but I never though of this ending which so powerfully enjambed in the story an intricate meaning.
“And I wasn’t about to answer her because the baby was dead and she was dead, too. Radko was dead, Jeannie the secretary whose last name I didn’t even know, and Joel Chinowski, and all the rest of them. Very slowly, button by button, I did up my shirt. Then I set my empty beer bottle down on the counter as carefully as if it were full to the lip and went on out the door and into the night, looking for somebody I could tell all about it.”
This paragraph is the ending to the short story “The Lie”. Notice how the author wrote the word was (in the first line before dead) in a cursive from trying to make it stand out. This ending made it seem as if Lonnie was completely crazy, or even autistic. The fact that Lonnie would eventually accept that his living daughter is dead wouldn’t of impacted me this way since a lay told many times could come true; however, in the ending the speaker tells the reader that every single character that appeared in this story (except for the women in the bar) “was” dead. What is the author exactly telling the reader here? This ending completely lost me, I really don’t know what the author wanted the reader to receive from this ending. The first line in the ending of this short story is Lonnie directly telling he reader that he wasn’t going to answer what Clover had told him due to the fact that everybody around him was dead. Then, in the last line he, still talking to the reader, says that he is going out to tell this story to another person. Both of these lines could also suggest that the author portrayed himself as Lonnie, and made up this story to entertain, or even play with the reader. The fact that Lonnie mentions him going to look for another person to tell this story to made me think about the above conclusion. Maybe, just like in The Crying of Lot 49, the author plays with the reader by first catching his attention then make the reader look for a meaning to the story to find that there was no meaning, that the author just played with the naïve fellows that happened to get interested in their works.
In this short story, Coraghessan may be mocking the unsatisfied workers of the world who invent ridiculous and rather dangerous excuses to not attend work: “The baby’s dead,” I said. “She died.” And then, in my grief, I broke the connection” Coraghessan). What kind of a sick man would invent that his daughter is DEAD to skip work? To go to such extreme where your excuses have ran out, forcing you to invent something such as the death of someone you allegedly love is just inhumane. My dad has always said to me that the day he doesn’t want to stand up from his bed to go to work, that day he will be dead man.
“…all I felt was regret and the cold drop of doom” (Coraghessan). This specific sentence caught my attention because it told the reader what was going to happen, Lonnie was going to get caught; however, Lonnie knew from then on that he was “doomed”, that he had just lost everything in his life for skipping a couple of days at work.
Passing on to my real interpretation of the text I am obliged to say that this story took me by surprise. At first, as I read along, I thought to myself that this was a very simple short story where its plot was easily deciphered. Lonnie was just a average man exhausted from his monotonous work, having as a consequence he inventing lies of any kind to skip work: “If I could make it to the weekend, I was sure that by Monday, Monday at the latest, whatever was wrong with me, this feeling of anger, hopelessness, turmoil, whatever it was, would be gone” (Coraghessan). As a reader I new from the instant that Lonnie had invented to skip work that his only child had died, that he was eventually going to get caught somehow by his wife or boss (Radko); however, the end suddenly hit me, I was never expecting it, I thought of the end just being a bad dream or just that the story continues, but I never though of this ending which so powerfully enjambed in the story an intricate meaning.
“And I wasn’t about to answer her because the baby was dead and she was dead, too. Radko was dead, Jeannie the secretary whose last name I didn’t even know, and Joel Chinowski, and all the rest of them. Very slowly, button by button, I did up my shirt. Then I set my empty beer bottle down on the counter as carefully as if it were full to the lip and went on out the door and into the night, looking for somebody I could tell all about it.”
This paragraph is the ending to the short story “The Lie”. Notice how the author wrote the word was (in the first line before dead) in a cursive from trying to make it stand out. This ending made it seem as if Lonnie was completely crazy, or even autistic. The fact that Lonnie would eventually accept that his living daughter is dead wouldn’t of impacted me this way since a lay told many times could come true; however, in the ending the speaker tells the reader that every single character that appeared in this story (except for the women in the bar) “was” dead. What is the author exactly telling the reader here? This ending completely lost me, I really don’t know what the author wanted the reader to receive from this ending. The first line in the ending of this short story is Lonnie directly telling he reader that he wasn’t going to answer what Clover had told him due to the fact that everybody around him was dead. Then, in the last line he, still talking to the reader, says that he is going out to tell this story to another person. Both of these lines could also suggest that the author portrayed himself as Lonnie, and made up this story to entertain, or even play with the reader. The fact that Lonnie mentions him going to look for another person to tell this story to made me think about the above conclusion. Maybe, just like in The Crying of Lot 49, the author plays with the reader by first catching his attention then make the reader look for a meaning to the story to find that there was no meaning, that the author just played with the naïve fellows that happened to get interested in their works.
In this short story, Coraghessan may be mocking the unsatisfied workers of the world who invent ridiculous and rather dangerous excuses to not attend work: “The baby’s dead,” I said. “She died.” And then, in my grief, I broke the connection” Coraghessan). What kind of a sick man would invent that his daughter is DEAD to skip work? To go to such extreme where your excuses have ran out, forcing you to invent something such as the death of someone you allegedly love is just inhumane. My dad has always said to me that the day he doesn’t want to stand up from his bed to go to work, that day he will be dead man.
“…all I felt was regret and the cold drop of doom” (Coraghessan). This specific sentence caught my attention because it told the reader what was going to happen, Lonnie was going to get caught; however, Lonnie knew from then on that he was “doomed”, that he had just lost everything in his life for skipping a couple of days at work.
And Then (Chapter 6 The Crying of Lot 49)
Pynchon developed his modernist novel through Oedipa’s eyes, taking into consideration may aspects of life such as honesty (lawyers and Oedipa’s affairs with Metzger), Love (IA), Communication (Mail system, Tristero and Maxwell’s Demon), Capitalism and Communism (Yoyodyne), etc. Pynchon developed these topics in great entertaining ways but left the novel “half” finished. At the end, Oedipa finally understands what Tristero, W.A.S.T.E and the muted horn meant; however it produced no apparent reaction that made the character change the way they see life. Oedipa just figured out one of her curiosities nothing more. It is weird how Pynchon made me believe that those stamps and Tristero would be something huge and enlightening, but it wasn’t it was just a vendetta made by a pissed off kid who didn’t receive his inheritance: “He styled himself [Tristero] El Desheredado, The Disinherited, and fashioned a livery of black for his followers, black to symbolize the only ting that truly belonged to them in their exile” (pg, 132). The strangest thing of all is that Oedipa’s Tistero system to end her encapsulation in the tower ended up falling apart as soon as she learned about Tristero.
“You think a man’s mind is a pool table?” (pg, 127). I had never thought of a man’s in the way of a pool table; however, it does apply in a sense. First of all, I have to start by demonstrating (in accordance to my sister) how she looked at a pool table in relation to a man’s mind… she saw the white ball as his will, and the other balls as his ideas. Then she spoke of these ideas being pushed down the holes of the table by the white ball; however, a man’s ideas were always fake and bad due to the fact that they ended up once again in the same place, restarting the cycle again. In my point of view, a pool table is similar to a man’s mind in the sense that it shows how we are. Again, the white ball is the one in charged of carrying out our ideas; however, I picture the white ball as the decisiveness that men have to pursue only one idea at a time regardless of how many colored balls (ideas) are on the table. Then, we try to look for the most simplest way of applying our ideas and meeting our goals, which in the pool table would be dumping a colored ball into a hole (one at a time). Finally, we men end up patiently carrying out everything we planned until new ideas come again; however, some men become lazy and arrogant and choose to let go of the stick that moves the white ball in every direction needed.
Finally, I found this book a good and inspiring challenge which entertained me. I do hope I could read it again sometime to fully grasp its puns and its usage of satire. In a way Pynchon reflects his personality in the novel. He as the author completely excludes himself from appearing in the novel, just like he has hidden himself from the world.
“You think a man’s mind is a pool table?” (pg, 127). I had never thought of a man’s in the way of a pool table; however, it does apply in a sense. First of all, I have to start by demonstrating (in accordance to my sister) how she looked at a pool table in relation to a man’s mind… she saw the white ball as his will, and the other balls as his ideas. Then she spoke of these ideas being pushed down the holes of the table by the white ball; however, a man’s ideas were always fake and bad due to the fact that they ended up once again in the same place, restarting the cycle again. In my point of view, a pool table is similar to a man’s mind in the sense that it shows how we are. Again, the white ball is the one in charged of carrying out our ideas; however, I picture the white ball as the decisiveness that men have to pursue only one idea at a time regardless of how many colored balls (ideas) are on the table. Then, we try to look for the most simplest way of applying our ideas and meeting our goals, which in the pool table would be dumping a colored ball into a hole (one at a time). Finally, we men end up patiently carrying out everything we planned until new ideas come again; however, some men become lazy and arrogant and choose to let go of the stick that moves the white ball in every direction needed.
Finally, I found this book a good and inspiring challenge which entertained me. I do hope I could read it again sometime to fully grasp its puns and its usage of satire. In a way Pynchon reflects his personality in the novel. He as the author completely excludes himself from appearing in the novel, just like he has hidden himself from the world.
Inamoraty Stoics (The Crying of Lot 49 Chapter 5)
I mentioned communication as one of the fundamental aspects that keep the world alive and “organized” so to speak. In this chapter, communication is again brought up in a bigger and more specific way by mentioning the Maxwell Demon machine. This machine will only organize the molecules/information that it contains if a person, a “sensitive”, is able to catch its message and communicate with the Demon: “Communication is the key, cried Nefastis. The Demon passes his data on to the sensitive, and the sensitive must reply in kind” (pg 84). Basically, this machine shows how things, even science, are unable to work without communication; however, Pynchon mocks this dependency on communication that us humans have. The author jokes about communication stating that only some humans understand the real message. “Only people with the gift. Sensitives, John calls them” (Pg, 69). Now, the machine communicated with a sensitive through a picture of Clerk Maxwell; however, this picture was a picture specially selected from the “Christian Knowledge Society” (pg, 69), which made me think that the “sensitives” were Christians only, and they could only communicate through faith. This was weird in the sense that Pynchon passed on to mock religion and the difficulties that a religious being goes through to supposedly receive a message form God. While Oedipa fights desperately to communicate with the machine, monks fight even more wholeheartedly to receive the word of God which in the end, allegedly, they receive.
“…I’m a member of the IA. That’s Inamorati Anonymous. An inamorato is somebody in love. That’s the worst addiction of all” (pg, 91). In a sense I deeply agree with Pynchon when he refers to love as the worst addiction. Well, love is a wonderful thing, and although I haven’t experienced true love towards another person that isn’t part of my family, love is still just wonderful. Love is an extended and complex theme but I had never before seen it as an addiction. It is strange to look at love as something that as soon as it takes hold of you it doesn’t ever loose its grasp. In this way, Epictetus came to my mind. Well, if you start to love someone, you will eventually love that person for the rest of your live making you somewhat dependent on the existence of this person. As a consequence, if this person dies or is gravely injured in someway, you will probably mourn your beloved until death, in contrast to what Epictetus tries to tell his readers about the world and love. Generally speaking, Epictetus motivates its reader to achieve happiness by looking at events in an indifferent way. This emotion is reflected in the Inamorati Anonymous in the sense that by loosing themselves form love’s grasp, they will never look at a person or object with another feeling than that of indifference eventually causing, in a Stoic point of view, happiness.
“…I’m a member of the IA. That’s Inamorati Anonymous. An inamorato is somebody in love. That’s the worst addiction of all” (pg, 91). In a sense I deeply agree with Pynchon when he refers to love as the worst addiction. Well, love is a wonderful thing, and although I haven’t experienced true love towards another person that isn’t part of my family, love is still just wonderful. Love is an extended and complex theme but I had never before seen it as an addiction. It is strange to look at love as something that as soon as it takes hold of you it doesn’t ever loose its grasp. In this way, Epictetus came to my mind. Well, if you start to love someone, you will eventually love that person for the rest of your live making you somewhat dependent on the existence of this person. As a consequence, if this person dies or is gravely injured in someway, you will probably mourn your beloved until death, in contrast to what Epictetus tries to tell his readers about the world and love. Generally speaking, Epictetus motivates its reader to achieve happiness by looking at events in an indifferent way. This emotion is reflected in the Inamorati Anonymous in the sense that by loosing themselves form love’s grasp, they will never look at a person or object with another feeling than that of indifference eventually causing, in a Stoic point of view, happiness.
What Are You Saying? (The Crying of Lot 49 chapter 4)
“…and in view of other details—the hatching, number of perforations, way the paper has aged—it’s obviously a counterfeit. Not just an error (pg 78).
“I’ve come up so far with eight in all. Each on has an error like this, laboriously worked into the design, like a taunt” (pg 78).
These quotes both show how the stamps of the U.S. mail system have been tampered on purpose. First Oedipa saw in the letter she received from Mucho a “typo” in which Postmaster was spelled Potsmaster, and then this? For now, I really don’t know what to expect; however, I think that Pynchon wants the reader to understand that communication (mail) is really what controls every human being. In the book for example, the unhappy workers of Yoyodyne are carrying out a boycott against the government through the company’s mail system. This fact makes me think that maybe the author wants to show us the importance of the mail system, long-distance communication, in the human world.
This postal boycott made by the Yoyodyne workers is very similar to a conclusion brought up by Cohen about a watermark: “The black costumes, the silence, the secrecy. Whoever they were their aim was to mute the Thurn and Taxis post horn” (pg 78). The fact that some secret, disguised people wanted to “mute” the post horn of the postal service Thurn and Taxis reflects the situation of the workers clearly. The workers are trying to take some of the power that the government has by boycotting the mail system, just like the black bandits. What does this analogy mean? What is its purpose? It is very strange how Pynchon relates these two topics with no apparent reason; however, I can’t draw any final conclusion before ending the novel.
In years past, an invention was attributed to its single, or most distinguished, creator. For example, the light bulb is attributed to one man, Thomas Alva Edison, while in the present a creation is credited to a whole company. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon does a slight allusion to this my mentioning the patent laws: “Koteks explained how every engineer, in signing the Yoyodyne contract, also signed away patent rights to any inventions he might come up with” (pg 67). With this said I believe that Pynchon is stating how massive, capitalist corporations take the knowledge of their employees and exploit them without giving them any credit. This could be an attack made by Pynchon towards a capitalist nation, or it could be an attack to communism by stating, that if people (by their own will) submit themselves to these types of unfair jobs in corporations, how would the force labor of communism be? I imagine a hardcore communism as a big patent law stating that the nation created something, not a single citizen, which is even more general than a single company. While in a capitalist society an engineer may say, I work in Yoyodyne where the nuclear bomb was created, in a communist nation a person says I live in China where the camera was created. In a communist nation, even more credit is taken off from the real creator.
“I’ve come up so far with eight in all. Each on has an error like this, laboriously worked into the design, like a taunt” (pg 78).
These quotes both show how the stamps of the U.S. mail system have been tampered on purpose. First Oedipa saw in the letter she received from Mucho a “typo” in which Postmaster was spelled Potsmaster, and then this? For now, I really don’t know what to expect; however, I think that Pynchon wants the reader to understand that communication (mail) is really what controls every human being. In the book for example, the unhappy workers of Yoyodyne are carrying out a boycott against the government through the company’s mail system. This fact makes me think that maybe the author wants to show us the importance of the mail system, long-distance communication, in the human world.
This postal boycott made by the Yoyodyne workers is very similar to a conclusion brought up by Cohen about a watermark: “The black costumes, the silence, the secrecy. Whoever they were their aim was to mute the Thurn and Taxis post horn” (pg 78). The fact that some secret, disguised people wanted to “mute” the post horn of the postal service Thurn and Taxis reflects the situation of the workers clearly. The workers are trying to take some of the power that the government has by boycotting the mail system, just like the black bandits. What does this analogy mean? What is its purpose? It is very strange how Pynchon relates these two topics with no apparent reason; however, I can’t draw any final conclusion before ending the novel.
In years past, an invention was attributed to its single, or most distinguished, creator. For example, the light bulb is attributed to one man, Thomas Alva Edison, while in the present a creation is credited to a whole company. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon does a slight allusion to this my mentioning the patent laws: “Koteks explained how every engineer, in signing the Yoyodyne contract, also signed away patent rights to any inventions he might come up with” (pg 67). With this said I believe that Pynchon is stating how massive, capitalist corporations take the knowledge of their employees and exploit them without giving them any credit. This could be an attack made by Pynchon towards a capitalist nation, or it could be an attack to communism by stating, that if people (by their own will) submit themselves to these types of unfair jobs in corporations, how would the force labor of communism be? I imagine a hardcore communism as a big patent law stating that the nation created something, not a single citizen, which is even more general than a single company. While in a capitalist society an engineer may say, I work in Yoyodyne where the nuclear bomb was created, in a communist nation a person says I live in China where the camera was created. In a communist nation, even more credit is taken off from the real creator.
God, Those Lawyers are a Real Pain in the… ( The Crying of Lot 49 Chapter 3)
As I started reading chapter three, I noticed something peculiar in the novel, but by no means meaningless. Pynchon described the TV set as the “TV tube”… the TV tube revealed the father…” (pg, 30), which made me think about when you look very closely through a tube. As you look into a tube, your vision becomes more limited and specific in a certain object due to the fact that the tube’s walls hamper your vision. And limiting your vision is exactly what the TV set does to its viewers, it shows most of the times only one perspective about an event. It evens show the viewers tampered images and videos of things that never happened. So, the fact that the TV only lets the viewer see what the person controlling the images wants you to see made me think on how a tube, by limiting you vision, only lets you look at what it wants you to see.
“Things then did not delay in turning curious.” ( pg, 31). This is the line which the speaker uses to begin chapter 3. I found this line very interesting in the sense that it directly gives the reader a clue that something “curious” will happen shortly. Normally, I as a reader can see if something is going to be “curious”; however, Pynchon may use this line not only to introduce what will happen soon, but to mock the reader. I believe that Pynchon mocks the reader because he explicitly tells the reader that something IS going to happen in case the reader was too distracted, or in some cases incapable to catch.
“If one object behind her discovery of what she was to label the Tristero System or often only The Tristero (as if it might be something’s secret title) were to bring to an end to her encapsulation in her tower, then that night’s infidelity with Metzger would logically be the starting point; logically.” (pg, 31). Notice how the speaker emphasizes on the word “logically”, but why? Is Pynchon trying to make the reader remember Metzger and his role in the newly created Tristero system? Is Pynchon just foreshadowing or playing one of his tricks on the reader to humiliate his naive fan? Maybe, I’ll like to find out as I read the novel.
Pynchon once again made me laugh with one of his jokes against private lawyers: “…Leonard the drummer now reached into the pocket of his beach robe and produced a fistful of marijuana cigarettes and distributed them among his chums. Metzger closed his eyes, turned his head, muttering, “Possession” (pg, 48). Metzger, a lawyer is closing his eyes to make himself believe that he wasn’t a witness of the drugs that Leonard carried. This attitude that Metzger demonstrates is, I believe, a target of Pynchon’s mockery. Pynchon wants to laugh at the attitude that private lawyers take toward their guilty clients. Even though the client may be guilty of an atrocious crime such as a raping, the lawyer just ignores this fact and manipulates the evidence in such a way that the criminal can walk free with the condition that the lawyer receives his paycheck. What I mean, is that private lawyers tend to apparent ignorance towards his/her client’s crime.
Speaking of lawyer jokes, Pynchon again makes a jeer at the lawyers of the U.S. and their lawsuits. For me personally, the U.S. is completely ridiculous when speaking of lawsuits due to the fact that anybody can sew an entity if they screw up. For example, a kid was skating in a building and fell and broke an arm. In my opinion, it was the kids fault of braking an arm; however, in the U.S. the kid is allowed to sew his building manager because he fell. In the book, Di Presso, a private lawyer, is going to sew Inverarity for not paying some bones left over form deceased soldiers in the Second World War. What kind of lawsuit is that? Nobody wants the bones, so why is it a big deal?
“Things then did not delay in turning curious.” ( pg, 31). This is the line which the speaker uses to begin chapter 3. I found this line very interesting in the sense that it directly gives the reader a clue that something “curious” will happen shortly. Normally, I as a reader can see if something is going to be “curious”; however, Pynchon may use this line not only to introduce what will happen soon, but to mock the reader. I believe that Pynchon mocks the reader because he explicitly tells the reader that something IS going to happen in case the reader was too distracted, or in some cases incapable to catch.
“If one object behind her discovery of what she was to label the Tristero System or often only The Tristero (as if it might be something’s secret title) were to bring to an end to her encapsulation in her tower, then that night’s infidelity with Metzger would logically be the starting point; logically.” (pg, 31). Notice how the speaker emphasizes on the word “logically”, but why? Is Pynchon trying to make the reader remember Metzger and his role in the newly created Tristero system? Is Pynchon just foreshadowing or playing one of his tricks on the reader to humiliate his naive fan? Maybe, I’ll like to find out as I read the novel.
Pynchon once again made me laugh with one of his jokes against private lawyers: “…Leonard the drummer now reached into the pocket of his beach robe and produced a fistful of marijuana cigarettes and distributed them among his chums. Metzger closed his eyes, turned his head, muttering, “Possession” (pg, 48). Metzger, a lawyer is closing his eyes to make himself believe that he wasn’t a witness of the drugs that Leonard carried. This attitude that Metzger demonstrates is, I believe, a target of Pynchon’s mockery. Pynchon wants to laugh at the attitude that private lawyers take toward their guilty clients. Even though the client may be guilty of an atrocious crime such as a raping, the lawyer just ignores this fact and manipulates the evidence in such a way that the criminal can walk free with the condition that the lawyer receives his paycheck. What I mean, is that private lawyers tend to apparent ignorance towards his/her client’s crime.
Speaking of lawyer jokes, Pynchon again makes a jeer at the lawyers of the U.S. and their lawsuits. For me personally, the U.S. is completely ridiculous when speaking of lawsuits due to the fact that anybody can sew an entity if they screw up. For example, a kid was skating in a building and fell and broke an arm. In my opinion, it was the kids fault of braking an arm; however, in the U.S. the kid is allowed to sew his building manager because he fell. In the book, Di Presso, a private lawyer, is going to sew Inverarity for not paying some bones left over form deceased soldiers in the Second World War. What kind of lawsuit is that? Nobody wants the bones, so why is it a big deal?
Ha ha, Oedipa's Society (The Crying of Lot 49 Chapter 2)
In the second chapter, the trip that Oedipa had to “San Narciso” is narrated. San Narciso is in Southern California, in accordance to the book, fact which made me think that San Narciso is in fact a mockery towards San Francisco. “San Narciso lay further south, near L.A. Like many places in California it was less an identifiable city than a grouping of concepts…” (Pynchon pg. 13). Continuing, the speaker starts to describe San Narciso through Oedipa’s eyes: “But if there was any vital difference between it and the rest of Southern California, it was invisible on first glance.” (Pynchon pg. 14). With this I really don’t know what Pynchon means, is he trying to state that every American city is the same dull unattractive place? Why San Francisco /Narciso? I really want to grasp the hidden answer of these questions as I read more of the book.
The speaker also mentions Southern California’s, always through Oedipa’s eyes, dull impact on every newcomer. In accordance to Oedipa, the city causes the same impact that she received when changing a transistor’s radio battery.
The ordered swirl of houses and streets, from this high angle, sprang at her now with the same unexpected, astonishing clarity as the circuit card had. Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. (Pynchon pg. 14).
There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her (if she had tried to find out); so in her first minute of San Narciso, a revelation also trembled just past the threshold of her understanding… she and her Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious instant. (Pynchon pg. 14).
The fact that the city had a “concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate” is a very singular thing to state in a city’s description. Maybe, Pynchon was trying to point out the excessive signs and advertisements that the American cities have due to capitalism. And if this is so, this will definitely confirm my theory of him being a procommunist.
“She and her Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious moment”, why not a moment? Why a religious moment? Or, jus why religious? Is Pynchon trying to say that every single aspect in society has some connection or relation with religion? Is this just an enjambment made by Pynchon to try to show how just every single aspect in the present has to do with religion. For example, even the most concrete facts of science, such as the present theories of evolution, have discords with the influence that religion has made on society. Well, due to religion, a teacher in the 1920´s (Scope) was fined with 100 dollars for teaching evolution in his science class. Or maybe Pynchon being a complete atheist, tried to mock how a revelation in religion is just a blurry and painful “vision”. “Smog hung all round the horizon, the sun on the bright beige countryside was painful; she and the Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious instant.
Miles Song
Too fat to Frug,
That’s what you tell me all the time,
When you really try’n’ to put me down,
I’m hip,
So close you big fat lip,
Yeah, baby,
I may be too fat to Frug,
But at least I ain’t to slim to Swim. (Pynchon pg. 16).
Come on! I have to say it, Miles song is a disgrace to music; however, I believe this song has a big meaning behind it. In my opinion, Pynchon was trying to imitate the meaningless songs that play in the presents, and, although they sound good and have a great beat, they are a shame. Or, isn’t “The Candy Shop” by Fifty Cent an obscene meaningless song?
Ha ha ha ha ha, Pynchon really made me laugh when he makes the comparison of an actor and a lawyer. “Me, I’m a former actor who became a lawyer.” (Pynchon pg. 22). This small statement clearly reflects who the speaker sees lawyers as hypocrites, and false, just like actors. Well, actors constantly play roles of other people in the movies, making them seem as false people, or even hypocrites, just like the speaker sees the lawyers of the present. This comparison made me laugh, because many private, rich lawyers do have this reputation.
As I continue this great novel, I hope that my questions are answered, and I do expect more satire about society (especially American).
The speaker also mentions Southern California’s, always through Oedipa’s eyes, dull impact on every newcomer. In accordance to Oedipa, the city causes the same impact that she received when changing a transistor’s radio battery.
The ordered swirl of houses and streets, from this high angle, sprang at her now with the same unexpected, astonishing clarity as the circuit card had. Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. (Pynchon pg. 14).
There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her (if she had tried to find out); so in her first minute of San Narciso, a revelation also trembled just past the threshold of her understanding… she and her Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious instant. (Pynchon pg. 14).
The fact that the city had a “concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate” is a very singular thing to state in a city’s description. Maybe, Pynchon was trying to point out the excessive signs and advertisements that the American cities have due to capitalism. And if this is so, this will definitely confirm my theory of him being a procommunist.
“She and her Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious moment”, why not a moment? Why a religious moment? Or, jus why religious? Is Pynchon trying to say that every single aspect in society has some connection or relation with religion? Is this just an enjambment made by Pynchon to try to show how just every single aspect in the present has to do with religion. For example, even the most concrete facts of science, such as the present theories of evolution, have discords with the influence that religion has made on society. Well, due to religion, a teacher in the 1920´s (Scope) was fined with 100 dollars for teaching evolution in his science class. Or maybe Pynchon being a complete atheist, tried to mock how a revelation in religion is just a blurry and painful “vision”. “Smog hung all round the horizon, the sun on the bright beige countryside was painful; she and the Chevy seemed parked at the centre of an odd, religious instant.
Miles Song
Too fat to Frug,
That’s what you tell me all the time,
When you really try’n’ to put me down,
I’m hip,
So close you big fat lip,
Yeah, baby,
I may be too fat to Frug,
But at least I ain’t to slim to Swim. (Pynchon pg. 16).
Come on! I have to say it, Miles song is a disgrace to music; however, I believe this song has a big meaning behind it. In my opinion, Pynchon was trying to imitate the meaningless songs that play in the presents, and, although they sound good and have a great beat, they are a shame. Or, isn’t “The Candy Shop” by Fifty Cent an obscene meaningless song?
Ha ha ha ha ha, Pynchon really made me laugh when he makes the comparison of an actor and a lawyer. “Me, I’m a former actor who became a lawyer.” (Pynchon pg. 22). This small statement clearly reflects who the speaker sees lawyers as hypocrites, and false, just like actors. Well, actors constantly play roles of other people in the movies, making them seem as false people, or even hypocrites, just like the speaker sees the lawyers of the present. This comparison made me laugh, because many private, rich lawyers do have this reputation.
As I continue this great novel, I hope that my questions are answered, and I do expect more satire about society (especially American).
A Hallucinated Escape (The Crying of Lot 49 Chapter 1)
Before I start my analysis, I’d like to question why would Thomas Pynchon decide to maintain anonymous? Most of the people, when they become famous, decide to show themselves as much as possible in contrast to what Pynchon is now doing. Maybe he doesn’t feel that the capitalist world in which we live in deserve to know him. I don’t know, there may be hundreds of reasons; anyway, I hope he reveals his true identity before he dies.
Oedipa Maas has a husband, Mucho Maas, which currently, to my opinion, lives in a constant emotional crisis where nothing satisfies him or consoles him. Mucho Maas is working in a radio station (KUCF) where he greatly detests his boss and dislikes his job; however, Mucho Maas had once a job as a cars salesman, but had to quit the job as soon as it became unbearable since he saw a persons life through the cars.
…he could still never accept the way each owner, each shadow, filed in only to exchange a dented, malfunctioning version of himself for another, just as futureless, automotive projection of somebody else’s life. As if it were the most natural thing. To Mucho it was horrible. Endless, convoluted incest. (Pynchon pg.5)
Mucho Maas couldn’t help seeing what a person was through their cars. By demonstrating this, Pynchon tells the reader that an object’s condition actually demonstrates, no matter how hard you try to look at them objectively, the way their owners are. And once that object has been naturally modified by the owner’s attitude, there is no way to replace it. This is why Mucho Maas was so disgusted when the owners of the cars changed the car’s original parts. Pynchon may also want to reflect through the crisis in which Mucho Maas constantly lives in as the way how the capitalist bosses in America, and the world, suppress their employee’s opinions.
Talking about capitalism, I believe Thomas Pynchon referred, in a mocking kind of way, the form in which the rich capitalist society solves their problems. Pynchon does this mockery through the image that Oedipa has of her life and the life of Pierce.
And had also gently conned herself into the curious, Rapunzel-like role of a pensive girl somehow, magically, prisoner among the pines and salt fogs of Kinneret, looking for somebody to say her, let down your hair. When it turned out to be Pierce she’s happily pulled out the pins and curlers and down it tumbled in its whispering, dainty avalanche, only when Pierce had got maybe halfway up, her lovely hair turned, through some sinister sorcery, into a great unanchorched wig, and down he fell, on his ass. But dauntless, perhaps using one of his many credit cards for a shim, he’d slipped the lock on her tower door and come up the conchlike stairs, which, ha true guile come more naturally to him, he’d have done to begin with. (Pynchon pg. 11).
This excerpt of the book was how Oedipa pictured herself. Now, the parody here is how, after plotting the problem, which is not being able to climb the tower through Rapunzel’s (Oedipa’s) hair, he has to recur to money as the way to solve the problem. Pynchon also does this to mock how everything in this world, even love at times, can be bought with money.
In this chapter I also noticed a certain similarity between this book, and the book of Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim uses time traveling as a way of escaping his life, while in this book Oedipa uses Pierce as a way of escaping her confinement in her tower (her life). “… that what she stood on had only been woven together a couple thousand miles away in her own tower, was only by accident known as Mexico, and so Pierce had taken her away from nothing, there’d be no escape.” (Pynchon pg. 11).
Oedipa Maas has a husband, Mucho Maas, which currently, to my opinion, lives in a constant emotional crisis where nothing satisfies him or consoles him. Mucho Maas is working in a radio station (KUCF) where he greatly detests his boss and dislikes his job; however, Mucho Maas had once a job as a cars salesman, but had to quit the job as soon as it became unbearable since he saw a persons life through the cars.
…he could still never accept the way each owner, each shadow, filed in only to exchange a dented, malfunctioning version of himself for another, just as futureless, automotive projection of somebody else’s life. As if it were the most natural thing. To Mucho it was horrible. Endless, convoluted incest. (Pynchon pg.5)
Mucho Maas couldn’t help seeing what a person was through their cars. By demonstrating this, Pynchon tells the reader that an object’s condition actually demonstrates, no matter how hard you try to look at them objectively, the way their owners are. And once that object has been naturally modified by the owner’s attitude, there is no way to replace it. This is why Mucho Maas was so disgusted when the owners of the cars changed the car’s original parts. Pynchon may also want to reflect through the crisis in which Mucho Maas constantly lives in as the way how the capitalist bosses in America, and the world, suppress their employee’s opinions.
Talking about capitalism, I believe Thomas Pynchon referred, in a mocking kind of way, the form in which the rich capitalist society solves their problems. Pynchon does this mockery through the image that Oedipa has of her life and the life of Pierce.
And had also gently conned herself into the curious, Rapunzel-like role of a pensive girl somehow, magically, prisoner among the pines and salt fogs of Kinneret, looking for somebody to say her, let down your hair. When it turned out to be Pierce she’s happily pulled out the pins and curlers and down it tumbled in its whispering, dainty avalanche, only when Pierce had got maybe halfway up, her lovely hair turned, through some sinister sorcery, into a great unanchorched wig, and down he fell, on his ass. But dauntless, perhaps using one of his many credit cards for a shim, he’d slipped the lock on her tower door and come up the conchlike stairs, which, ha true guile come more naturally to him, he’d have done to begin with. (Pynchon pg. 11).
This excerpt of the book was how Oedipa pictured herself. Now, the parody here is how, after plotting the problem, which is not being able to climb the tower through Rapunzel’s (Oedipa’s) hair, he has to recur to money as the way to solve the problem. Pynchon also does this to mock how everything in this world, even love at times, can be bought with money.
In this chapter I also noticed a certain similarity between this book, and the book of Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim uses time traveling as a way of escaping his life, while in this book Oedipa uses Pierce as a way of escaping her confinement in her tower (her life). “… that what she stood on had only been woven together a couple thousand miles away in her own tower, was only by accident known as Mexico, and so Pierce had taken her away from nothing, there’d be no escape.” (Pynchon pg. 11).
Literature Forming Literature (Waste Land sections 3,4,5) Allusions
In the last three sections of The Waste Land, Elliot uses many allusions to put in more feeling into his poems, and, most of all, to cause an even more vivid feelings and meanings to express to the reader. In these sections, there are many allusions to , Buddha and most of all, to Greek mythology. I believe that T.S. Elliot chose to use allusions to Greek mythology characters, because every character in the Greek mythology has a deep meaning, every character symbolizes something, giving the poem a better meaning when these allusions are made.
In the third chapter for example, Tiresias was mentioned. He is the most famous Greek soothsayer. Tiresias was given the gift to see in the future; however, he was blinded by Athena when he saw her taking a bath. Now, Tiresias has a very singular aspect and is that he is an old man with wrinkled female breasts. “I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives,/ Old man with wrinkled female breasts…” (Elliot, line 219). As a consequence to the fact that Tiresias is half man half women contributes to he foreseeing the intercourse between a man and a woman, and “forsuffer” it, “(And I Tiresias have foresuffered all/ Enacted on this same divan or bed…” (Elliot, line 244); however, it is not clear to me why does he suffer when seeing the clerk and the woman having intercourse? Is it because he laments that humans can’t really achieve satisfaction through intercourse? I’m sure that the use of Tiresias has a deep meaning which is hidden deeply in Elliot’s writings.
Besides the clear allusion that Elliot does of Buddha by placing the title of one section of Buddha’s “Three Cardinal Discourses” (“The Fire Sermon”), Elliot does an allusion to “The Fire Sermon” at the very end of the third section of his book of poems:
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou Pluckest me out
O Lord Thoug pluckest
Burning (Elliot, line 311).
Burning, burning, burning, every Earthly thing is burning with lust, delusion and pain. Every earthly thing just misleads the mind to make the body, but no the soul, think that it is being satisfied. Every Earthly thing is burning, just like Carthage when the Roman Empire lit it in Flames to end the Punic Wars (this allusion can be also considered an allusion to war)
Then, in the fifth section of The Waste Land, explicit allusions to war are made such as “Falling towers/Jerusalem Athens Alexandria/Vienna London…” (Elliot, line 375). Here, the falling towers are the falling historical monuments that each city mentioned above got burned or destroyed by wars.
And last but not least, Elliot does an allusion to society in an amazing way, he does an allusion through the use of a children’s song.
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my land in order? (Elliot, line 425)
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down (Elliot, line 427).
Here, before the children’s song is mentioned, a fisherman look behind him and saw the consequences of the human race “the arid plain”; however, the fisherman is fishing which means that since there is still water, there is still hope. This same meaning is what the children’s song mean, that modern society is decaying “London Bridge is falling down”; however, it has fallen yet.
In the third chapter for example, Tiresias was mentioned. He is the most famous Greek soothsayer. Tiresias was given the gift to see in the future; however, he was blinded by Athena when he saw her taking a bath. Now, Tiresias has a very singular aspect and is that he is an old man with wrinkled female breasts. “I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives,/ Old man with wrinkled female breasts…” (Elliot, line 219). As a consequence to the fact that Tiresias is half man half women contributes to he foreseeing the intercourse between a man and a woman, and “forsuffer” it, “(And I Tiresias have foresuffered all/ Enacted on this same divan or bed…” (Elliot, line 244); however, it is not clear to me why does he suffer when seeing the clerk and the woman having intercourse? Is it because he laments that humans can’t really achieve satisfaction through intercourse? I’m sure that the use of Tiresias has a deep meaning which is hidden deeply in Elliot’s writings.
Besides the clear allusion that Elliot does of Buddha by placing the title of one section of Buddha’s “Three Cardinal Discourses” (“The Fire Sermon”), Elliot does an allusion to “The Fire Sermon” at the very end of the third section of his book of poems:
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou Pluckest me out
O Lord Thoug pluckest
Burning (Elliot, line 311).
Burning, burning, burning, every Earthly thing is burning with lust, delusion and pain. Every earthly thing just misleads the mind to make the body, but no the soul, think that it is being satisfied. Every Earthly thing is burning, just like Carthage when the Roman Empire lit it in Flames to end the Punic Wars (this allusion can be also considered an allusion to war)
Then, in the fifth section of The Waste Land, explicit allusions to war are made such as “Falling towers/Jerusalem Athens Alexandria/Vienna London…” (Elliot, line 375). Here, the falling towers are the falling historical monuments that each city mentioned above got burned or destroyed by wars.
And last but not least, Elliot does an allusion to society in an amazing way, he does an allusion through the use of a children’s song.
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my land in order? (Elliot, line 425)
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down (Elliot, line 427).
Here, before the children’s song is mentioned, a fisherman look behind him and saw the consequences of the human race “the arid plain”; however, the fisherman is fishing which means that since there is still water, there is still hope. This same meaning is what the children’s song mean, that modern society is decaying “London Bridge is falling down”; however, it has fallen yet.
A Classic Appearance (Waste Land sections 1 and 2)
After rereading the first two sections of The Waste Land again, I realized that my previous interpretations of the text still stood firmly; however, I found other interpretations which I had not grasped before.
In the first section, “The Burial of the Dead”, I found it rather interesting how Elliot mentions through Marie the complete opposites of what every human being thinks of the seasons.
APRIL is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in a forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers. (Elliot, line 7).
How can you breed flowers form a dead land? How can winter and snow keep us warm? These sudden contrasts confused me. In my opinion, Elliot suggests that April, where summer and blooming is at its climax, is when you visit the dead and leave on their graves flowers. This action is why April is the cruelest month, because you again recall the memories you had with the dead, and you desire that they will live again like flowers do after winter. Then, the speaker, Marie, talks about winter being the season that kept you warm. This is because no flower is around to remind your deceased loved ones.
I also questioned myself about the “Unreal City”, that Elliot mentions in the last stanza of the first section. Why is the unreal city in London? I thought it might be due to the bloody wars in which London has participated in; however, if it were for the wars, wouldn’t Germany, France, Russia, etc. be also locations for unreal cities?
Then, a singular verse clicked in my mind Dante’s Inferno, “I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring…” (Elliot, line 56). This image of people walking around in a ring is just like the punishment that the Avaricious and the Prodigal received in the Fourth Circle of hell. In this circle, the doomed had to push the waits that they had spent or saved and pushed them around in circles.
Then, in section two, “The Chess Game”, I realized something about a word “tonight” that was spelled “to-night”, “My nerves are bad to-night.” (Elliot, line 111). The word to-night made me think that Elliot might have wanted to say that this wasn’t the only time the rich girl went crazy, that she had felt this way in other occasions. I interpreted as “My nerves are bad too tonight”, but in order for the sound and rhythm of the poem to be right, Elliot made this enjambment.
In the first section, “The Burial of the Dead”, I found it rather interesting how Elliot mentions through Marie the complete opposites of what every human being thinks of the seasons.
APRIL is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in a forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers. (Elliot, line 7).
How can you breed flowers form a dead land? How can winter and snow keep us warm? These sudden contrasts confused me. In my opinion, Elliot suggests that April, where summer and blooming is at its climax, is when you visit the dead and leave on their graves flowers. This action is why April is the cruelest month, because you again recall the memories you had with the dead, and you desire that they will live again like flowers do after winter. Then, the speaker, Marie, talks about winter being the season that kept you warm. This is because no flower is around to remind your deceased loved ones.
I also questioned myself about the “Unreal City”, that Elliot mentions in the last stanza of the first section. Why is the unreal city in London? I thought it might be due to the bloody wars in which London has participated in; however, if it were for the wars, wouldn’t Germany, France, Russia, etc. be also locations for unreal cities?
Then, a singular verse clicked in my mind Dante’s Inferno, “I see crowds of people, walking round in a ring…” (Elliot, line 56). This image of people walking around in a ring is just like the punishment that the Avaricious and the Prodigal received in the Fourth Circle of hell. In this circle, the doomed had to push the waits that they had spent or saved and pushed them around in circles.
Then, in section two, “The Chess Game”, I realized something about a word “tonight” that was spelled “to-night”, “My nerves are bad to-night.” (Elliot, line 111). The word to-night made me think that Elliot might have wanted to say that this wasn’t the only time the rich girl went crazy, that she had felt this way in other occasions. I interpreted as “My nerves are bad too tonight”, but in order for the sound and rhythm of the poem to be right, Elliot made this enjambment.
"Remember, Not Everything is Lost" (Waste Land Sections 2,3,4,5).
After reading what was left of The Waste Land (“A Game of Chess”, “The Fire Sermon”, “Death by Water”, and “What the Thunder Said”) I realized that the whole compilation of poems is just a crude reflection of the hugely flawed society in which we currently live in, and will live in if we don’t take our faults into consideration (individually).
In the second section, “A Game of Chess”, Elliot depicts a stratified society in which a rich girl and her environment is described, and a poor, maybe prostitute, that is worried about not satisfying Albert (a soldier), since she will then loose him to other girls that can satisfy him.
The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne,
Glowed on the marble, where the glass
Held up by standards wrought with fruited vines
From which a golden Cupidon peeped out
(Another hid his eyes behind his wing)
Doubled the flames of sevenbranched candelabra
Reflecting light upon the table as
The glitter of her jewels rose to meet it,
From satin cases poured in profusion;…
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid…/And drowned the sense in odors. (Elliot, line 89).
In the above excerpt taken out form the beginning of the second section of Elliot’s poems, the author clearly creates an image of the richness that the girl who is seating in the throne has. She is in a room filled with abundant jewelry and expensive decorations such as marble floors, and sevenbranched candelabras; however, although the girl has everything in her life to entertain herself, she goes crazy and paranoid while she waits for her love, I think, who is taking longer than expected.
‘My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. (Elliot, line 111).
‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing. (Elliot, line 120).
Here, the constant questioning of the girl is a reflection of her paranoia and anxiety. In the other hand however, there is poverty. Lil a poor girl, who I think is a prostitute, is talking to a friend about her life and about Albert. In my opinion, Albert is just a frequent client who asks Lil for her services, which are intercourse.
Now Albert’s coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He’ll want to know what you done with the money he gave you
To get some teeth. (Elliot, line 144)
And if you don’t give it to him, there’s others will, I said. (Elliot, line 149)
You ought to be ashamed, I said, to look so antique.
(And her only thirty-one). (Elliot, line 157).
In the above quotes of Lil’s conversation clearly a sense of poverty is shone. First, Albert gave Lil some money for teeth, and he wants to see her teeth when he gets back; however, it looks like Lil spent the money in other things in order to survive. Then, the fact that Albert will leave her if she doesn’t GIVE IT to her, is a clear way of expressing that he wants only sexual pleasure. And last, another imagery of poverty is when the author mentions that she looks so antique even though she is only thirty-one. The fact that she is thirty-one and already Lil is looking antique shows how hard life has been to her.
Basically, when Elliot makes this contrast between the two “worlds”, one of poverty and suffering, and the other of richness and anxiety, he is basically comparing the different reactions that the rich and the poor have depending on their situation. When the rich girl, although she has everything in life, is stood up, she goes completely crazy, and starts asking herself paranoiac questions such as the noise that the wind makes beneath the door. In contrast, when the poor girl has nothing in life, she goes to having sex for money, and, if she is stood up, she won’t be able to survive which will cause her not to go crazy, but to die. I believe this is what Elliot wanted to show in this section.
“HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME” (Elliot lines: 141,152, 165,178 and 179). This phrase constantly interrupted the dialogue that Lil had with the narrator, and, most of the times, it was “totally uncalled for”. The phrase just appeared in the middle of the dialogue, and it was said by a third person. This phrase was very odd to me, but I then realized that it may simply be the way that Elliot used to show the reader where the characters were. Well, at the end of the section, Lil and her partner say “Goonight” to some men which are called Bill and Lou, making me think that maybe they are in the brothel where Lil works at, and the owner, who apparently is Bill or Lou are closing the establishment.
The third section has a very peculiar title, “The Fire Sermon” (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html#s3 ). I say this title is peculiar, because I remember that once Buddha made a speech called the “The Tree Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha”, where, the third part of the speech was called “The Fire Sermon”. In this third part, if I’m not mistaken, Buddha refers to every Earthly thing as if it were burning with lust, pain, and delusion. He makes this comparison to show that if we want to be happy we have to get rid of these Earthly things that cause negative reactions and eventual sadness in a human being. Then, before even reading this section I realized that Elliot was going to criticize our society again.
The first stanza, starts by talking about a clean and perfect river, and nature (as it is) abounds widely until we come and everything goes caput. “But at my back in a cold blast I hear/ The rattle of the bones, and the chuckle spread from ear to ear” (Elliot line, 186). Then, the poem continues depicting images of a contaminated canal where a fisherman is sadly fishing, surrounded by the polluting machines of humans.
While I was fishing in the dull canal…
White bodies naked on the low damp ground…
The sound of horns and motors… (Elliot, line 197).
Basically, Elliot describes who we have turned the world with our actions. The canal is infested with naked bodies! War! That is what Elliot want’s to show us readers, he wants to tell us to stop ignoring what is happening and act accordingly to create solutions.
In this section, metaphorically, the consequences of not following “The Fire Sermon” are shown after Tiresias “forsuffers” the violet hour in which a female who has intercourse with a male clerk, just for the pleasure of it, and when the sex is over, she is glad that it has finished:
She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed though to pass:
‘Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.’(Elliot line 252).
Clearly by doing this Elliot states that we shall never be satisfied if we don’t get rid of Earthly pleasures and things in general. And last, to finalize this section, Elliot mentions how Elizabeth, by following the sermon of Buddha, achieves to be happy, well, when Elizabeth is not tempted by Leicester’s words, but is satisfied with the humble people who expect nothing, she is happy, she is satisfied.
The broken fingernails of dirty hands.
My people humble people who expect
Nothing.’ (Elliot line 305).
The fourth section of The Waste Land is the shortest; however, its meaning is extensive and rather profound. In this section, the body of a Phoenician sailor, who apparently drowned, is at the bottom of the sea being food for the fishes. Phlebas, the Phoenician sailor, has already finished his cycle of life, but he was once like every other human being. “Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.” ( Elliot, line 321). And, because Phelbas was once like I, I believe that Elliot is sending the reader a wake up call which is: You don’t live in eternity, so do what you have to do now.
Last but not least, the fifth section of the poem book by T.S. Elliot, “What the Thunder Said”. In this section, I believe that Elliot just states that the world is decaying rapidly due to the actions of the human race, such as wars and pollution.
AFTER the torchlight red on sweaty faces
After the frosty silence in the gardens
After the agony in stony places
The shouting and the crying
Prison and place and reverberation
He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience. (Elliot, line 330).
Everything is falling apart; however, Elliot then mentions a hooded figure walking beside me/humanity as I tore around everything in my path. “Who is the third who walks beside you?” (Elliot, line 359). That third figure which the speaker couldn’t identify is Jesus in my eyes. Elliot is making us remember that when sins abound, also does Jesus to save us from them. This, I took it as a sign of hope given by Elliot, he says that there is hope of saving our world, but Jesus is only the hope, will the action is us, and that action cannot be stopped by Jesus. Basically, Elliot says, that although the hope of changing is still near, it is up to us to fulfill that desire which we so hope for.
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order? (Elliot line, 425).
The arid lands are what humans have caused, but we can still set them in order.
In the second section, “A Game of Chess”, Elliot depicts a stratified society in which a rich girl and her environment is described, and a poor, maybe prostitute, that is worried about not satisfying Albert (a soldier), since she will then loose him to other girls that can satisfy him.
The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne,
Glowed on the marble, where the glass
Held up by standards wrought with fruited vines
From which a golden Cupidon peeped out
(Another hid his eyes behind his wing)
Doubled the flames of sevenbranched candelabra
Reflecting light upon the table as
The glitter of her jewels rose to meet it,
From satin cases poured in profusion;…
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid…/And drowned the sense in odors. (Elliot, line 89).
In the above excerpt taken out form the beginning of the second section of Elliot’s poems, the author clearly creates an image of the richness that the girl who is seating in the throne has. She is in a room filled with abundant jewelry and expensive decorations such as marble floors, and sevenbranched candelabras; however, although the girl has everything in her life to entertain herself, she goes crazy and paranoid while she waits for her love, I think, who is taking longer than expected.
‘My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. (Elliot, line 111).
‘What is that noise?’
The wind under the door.
‘What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?’
Nothing again nothing. (Elliot, line 120).
Here, the constant questioning of the girl is a reflection of her paranoia and anxiety. In the other hand however, there is poverty. Lil a poor girl, who I think is a prostitute, is talking to a friend about her life and about Albert. In my opinion, Albert is just a frequent client who asks Lil for her services, which are intercourse.
Now Albert’s coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He’ll want to know what you done with the money he gave you
To get some teeth. (Elliot, line 144)
And if you don’t give it to him, there’s others will, I said. (Elliot, line 149)
You ought to be ashamed, I said, to look so antique.
(And her only thirty-one). (Elliot, line 157).
In the above quotes of Lil’s conversation clearly a sense of poverty is shone. First, Albert gave Lil some money for teeth, and he wants to see her teeth when he gets back; however, it looks like Lil spent the money in other things in order to survive. Then, the fact that Albert will leave her if she doesn’t GIVE IT to her, is a clear way of expressing that he wants only sexual pleasure. And last, another imagery of poverty is when the author mentions that she looks so antique even though she is only thirty-one. The fact that she is thirty-one and already Lil is looking antique shows how hard life has been to her.
Basically, when Elliot makes this contrast between the two “worlds”, one of poverty and suffering, and the other of richness and anxiety, he is basically comparing the different reactions that the rich and the poor have depending on their situation. When the rich girl, although she has everything in life, is stood up, she goes completely crazy, and starts asking herself paranoiac questions such as the noise that the wind makes beneath the door. In contrast, when the poor girl has nothing in life, she goes to having sex for money, and, if she is stood up, she won’t be able to survive which will cause her not to go crazy, but to die. I believe this is what Elliot wanted to show in this section.
“HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME” (Elliot lines: 141,152, 165,178 and 179). This phrase constantly interrupted the dialogue that Lil had with the narrator, and, most of the times, it was “totally uncalled for”. The phrase just appeared in the middle of the dialogue, and it was said by a third person. This phrase was very odd to me, but I then realized that it may simply be the way that Elliot used to show the reader where the characters were. Well, at the end of the section, Lil and her partner say “Goonight” to some men which are called Bill and Lou, making me think that maybe they are in the brothel where Lil works at, and the owner, who apparently is Bill or Lou are closing the establishment.
The third section has a very peculiar title, “The Fire Sermon” (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html#s3 ). I say this title is peculiar, because I remember that once Buddha made a speech called the “The Tree Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha”, where, the third part of the speech was called “The Fire Sermon”. In this third part, if I’m not mistaken, Buddha refers to every Earthly thing as if it were burning with lust, pain, and delusion. He makes this comparison to show that if we want to be happy we have to get rid of these Earthly things that cause negative reactions and eventual sadness in a human being. Then, before even reading this section I realized that Elliot was going to criticize our society again.
The first stanza, starts by talking about a clean and perfect river, and nature (as it is) abounds widely until we come and everything goes caput. “But at my back in a cold blast I hear/ The rattle of the bones, and the chuckle spread from ear to ear” (Elliot line, 186). Then, the poem continues depicting images of a contaminated canal where a fisherman is sadly fishing, surrounded by the polluting machines of humans.
While I was fishing in the dull canal…
White bodies naked on the low damp ground…
The sound of horns and motors… (Elliot, line 197).
Basically, Elliot describes who we have turned the world with our actions. The canal is infested with naked bodies! War! That is what Elliot want’s to show us readers, he wants to tell us to stop ignoring what is happening and act accordingly to create solutions.
In this section, metaphorically, the consequences of not following “The Fire Sermon” are shown after Tiresias “forsuffers” the violet hour in which a female who has intercourse with a male clerk, just for the pleasure of it, and when the sex is over, she is glad that it has finished:
She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed though to pass:
‘Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.’(Elliot line 252).
Clearly by doing this Elliot states that we shall never be satisfied if we don’t get rid of Earthly pleasures and things in general. And last, to finalize this section, Elliot mentions how Elizabeth, by following the sermon of Buddha, achieves to be happy, well, when Elizabeth is not tempted by Leicester’s words, but is satisfied with the humble people who expect nothing, she is happy, she is satisfied.
The broken fingernails of dirty hands.
My people humble people who expect
Nothing.’ (Elliot line 305).
The fourth section of The Waste Land is the shortest; however, its meaning is extensive and rather profound. In this section, the body of a Phoenician sailor, who apparently drowned, is at the bottom of the sea being food for the fishes. Phlebas, the Phoenician sailor, has already finished his cycle of life, but he was once like every other human being. “Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.” ( Elliot, line 321). And, because Phelbas was once like I, I believe that Elliot is sending the reader a wake up call which is: You don’t live in eternity, so do what you have to do now.
Last but not least, the fifth section of the poem book by T.S. Elliot, “What the Thunder Said”. In this section, I believe that Elliot just states that the world is decaying rapidly due to the actions of the human race, such as wars and pollution.
AFTER the torchlight red on sweaty faces
After the frosty silence in the gardens
After the agony in stony places
The shouting and the crying
Prison and place and reverberation
He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience. (Elliot, line 330).
Everything is falling apart; however, Elliot then mentions a hooded figure walking beside me/humanity as I tore around everything in my path. “Who is the third who walks beside you?” (Elliot, line 359). That third figure which the speaker couldn’t identify is Jesus in my eyes. Elliot is making us remember that when sins abound, also does Jesus to save us from them. This, I took it as a sign of hope given by Elliot, he says that there is hope of saving our world, but Jesus is only the hope, will the action is us, and that action cannot be stopped by Jesus. Basically, Elliot says, that although the hope of changing is still near, it is up to us to fulfill that desire which we so hope for.
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order? (Elliot line, 425).
The arid lands are what humans have caused, but we can still set them in order.
Oh! A Farewell to us! (Waste Land section 1)
The first section of the intricate compilation of poems by T.S. Elliot, The Waste Land, is called “The Burial of the Dead”. Here, Elliot talks about Death in a human’s life; however, he does it in a strange and rather confusing way. And, although it may seem weird that a author would try to confuse his/her reader, I think Elliot in fact tried to confuse the reader in this section to give him the mood of what Death is really about. Basically, there is no form of narrating what awaits us after Death, reason for why Elliot tried to confuse his reader, to make the reader feel that anxiety of knowing what awaits us after death strikes. Elliot then demonstrates how many people trying to escape that uncertainty of what happens after death, recur to the horoscope or the Tarot.
Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor... (Elliot, line 46).
The Hanged Man. Fear death by water. (Elliot, line 55)
…Tell her I bring the horoscope myself:
One must be so careful these days. (Elliot, line 59).
Another thing that caught my attention was the usage of other languages in the middle of the poem by Elliot: “Firsch weht der Wind Der Heimat zu. Mein Irisch Kind, Wo weilest du?” (Elliot, line 34). What is Elliot trying to do by just speaking in a random language in the middle of the stanza? Is he trying to prove his authority over the speaker? I hope this doubt is later answered.
As I kept reading, I noticed that Elliot mentioned the “Son of Man”:
…Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only a heap of broken images, where the sun beats, And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. (Elliot, line 24).
What does Elliot mean by the “Son of man”? Is he referring to the creations of men, or the simple creation of other human beings by one man (Adam)? I really don’t know, but what I interpreted of this excerpt is that Elliot is criticizing (harshly) the human race, because it only has bad memories of wars, violence, poverty, inequality, etc. the human race is constantly surrounded by these problems and, apparently, it is doing little to nothing to fix them. As Elliot mentioned the ironies of a tree giving no shelter, or a cricket no relief, I instantly pictured a constant suffering of a being, and isn’t that constant suffering reflected on many humans? My answer is yes.
I found a metaphor in this section of The Waste Land where Elliot compares rocks, with situations. “Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks, The lady of situations” (Elliot, line 50). Notice, that Elliot states that the same lady (Belladonna) represents both rocks and situations, giving the reader a sense of similarity between these two things. I personally thought how rocks constantly change and shift their positions depending on the environment conditions, just like situations change depending on their context. This analogy speaks only the truth, since life is filled with situations that are constantly being altered, changing humans’ lives.
And I will show you something different form either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust… (Elliot line, 30)
The sentence above caught my attention above all the sentences that compose this poem. Elliot describes fear as something humans have rarely experienced, when I believed that we as humans are in constant fear of something bad to happen. Why is that? Why does Elliot look at fear as something so rare? However, he then makes and opposition to the rareness of fear and describes fear as being so common as to be in a handful of dust. Why? Why? Why? Is this a way used by Elliot to tell the reader that there is more to fear? That we should fear about the destiny of the decaying society we live in?
The hyacinth flower is mentioned in “The Burial of the Dead”, making me think about the Greek myth of the creation of this flower. In accordance to the Greek mythology, Apollo killed this chilled who he loved dearest, and, to honor him, he made the hyacinth flower sprout from his sepulcher. I thought of Elliot using the hyacinth flower to indicate the honor we (the living) do to the dead.
‘You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
‘They called me the hyacinth girl.’
Yet when we came back, late, form the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither living nor dead, and knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the silence. (Elliot, line 42)
This hyacinth girl was a signed of death, and how, she is being mourned by someone as she looks into the light; however, the hyacinth has a bulbous form, which in turn is similar to a uterus which in fact gives LIFE. As a consequence, Elliot could be implying that in fact that death is a rebirth, either spiritual or physical, I don’t know.
I found very interesting the ending of this section: “You! Hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!” (Elliot, line 76). Elliot directly talks/relates to the reader of his poem as a hypocrite, although brother and similar of Elliot. I believe Elliot is saying that every human being is an hypocrite because he or she chooses to ignore one or more faults in society such as war, poverty, inequality, etc. this is also speaks only the truth.
Here, said she,
Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor... (Elliot, line 46).
The Hanged Man. Fear death by water. (Elliot, line 55)
…Tell her I bring the horoscope myself:
One must be so careful these days. (Elliot, line 59).
Another thing that caught my attention was the usage of other languages in the middle of the poem by Elliot: “Firsch weht der Wind Der Heimat zu. Mein Irisch Kind, Wo weilest du?” (Elliot, line 34). What is Elliot trying to do by just speaking in a random language in the middle of the stanza? Is he trying to prove his authority over the speaker? I hope this doubt is later answered.
As I kept reading, I noticed that Elliot mentioned the “Son of Man”:
…Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only a heap of broken images, where the sun beats, And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. (Elliot, line 24).
What does Elliot mean by the “Son of man”? Is he referring to the creations of men, or the simple creation of other human beings by one man (Adam)? I really don’t know, but what I interpreted of this excerpt is that Elliot is criticizing (harshly) the human race, because it only has bad memories of wars, violence, poverty, inequality, etc. the human race is constantly surrounded by these problems and, apparently, it is doing little to nothing to fix them. As Elliot mentioned the ironies of a tree giving no shelter, or a cricket no relief, I instantly pictured a constant suffering of a being, and isn’t that constant suffering reflected on many humans? My answer is yes.
I found a metaphor in this section of The Waste Land where Elliot compares rocks, with situations. “Here is Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks, The lady of situations” (Elliot, line 50). Notice, that Elliot states that the same lady (Belladonna) represents both rocks and situations, giving the reader a sense of similarity between these two things. I personally thought how rocks constantly change and shift their positions depending on the environment conditions, just like situations change depending on their context. This analogy speaks only the truth, since life is filled with situations that are constantly being altered, changing humans’ lives.
And I will show you something different form either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust… (Elliot line, 30)
The sentence above caught my attention above all the sentences that compose this poem. Elliot describes fear as something humans have rarely experienced, when I believed that we as humans are in constant fear of something bad to happen. Why is that? Why does Elliot look at fear as something so rare? However, he then makes and opposition to the rareness of fear and describes fear as being so common as to be in a handful of dust. Why? Why? Why? Is this a way used by Elliot to tell the reader that there is more to fear? That we should fear about the destiny of the decaying society we live in?
The hyacinth flower is mentioned in “The Burial of the Dead”, making me think about the Greek myth of the creation of this flower. In accordance to the Greek mythology, Apollo killed this chilled who he loved dearest, and, to honor him, he made the hyacinth flower sprout from his sepulcher. I thought of Elliot using the hyacinth flower to indicate the honor we (the living) do to the dead.
‘You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
‘They called me the hyacinth girl.’
Yet when we came back, late, form the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither living nor dead, and knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the silence. (Elliot, line 42)
This hyacinth girl was a signed of death, and how, she is being mourned by someone as she looks into the light; however, the hyacinth has a bulbous form, which in turn is similar to a uterus which in fact gives LIFE. As a consequence, Elliot could be implying that in fact that death is a rebirth, either spiritual or physical, I don’t know.
I found very interesting the ending of this section: “You! Hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!” (Elliot, line 76). Elliot directly talks/relates to the reader of his poem as a hypocrite, although brother and similar of Elliot. I believe Elliot is saying that every human being is an hypocrite because he or she chooses to ignore one or more faults in society such as war, poverty, inequality, etc. this is also speaks only the truth.
" I am Zeus the Puppet Master" (Sections 30 to end)
I remember asking myself in the analysis of the sections sixteen to thirty about who was the play-writer, about who was the force that plotted out every person’s life? So, because of this question I had, I kept on reading and found that in section 31 the gods were mentioned. “The most important aspect of piety toward the gods…” (Epictetus sec 31). After reading this small phrase I began to wonder about which gods they were referring to, and, due to the time period where Socrates and Epictetus were alive, I concluded that the gods they were referring to were the Greek gods of the Olympus. Now, if we continue to read what follows the phrase from section 31, a clear reflection of a philosopher in Greece during that time period is given to the reader:
The most important aspect of piety toward the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and to follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgment. (Epictetus sec. 31).
In this small excerpt, I saw as a reader the fear that the people of Greece had toward the Gods in that time. The excerpt clearly says that you have to willingly obey everything that the gods demand. This shows fear of punishment by the gods if they are refused by a powerless human being such as a philosopher, or a non-philosopher. I also saw, how religion should fit every doctrine or theory that was devised during that era.
Speaking of a philosopher and a non-philosopher, Epictetus strangely stratifies the society in which he lived in as philosopher or non-philosopher. “The position and character of a non-philosopher: he never looks for benefit or harm to come from himself but from things outside. The position and character of a philosopher: he looks for all benefit and harm to come from himself.” (Epictetus sec 48). Epictetus here suggests that being a philosopher was one of the highest statuses you could get in his society, due to the fact that he compares through his handbook the non-philosophers, and the philosophers, where, obviously, the philosopher has always better traits than the non-philosopher.
Finally I must say that since the life of a Stoic is plotted by the gods and written in the cosmos, then really the gods have all the power, which makes me end this analysis in accordance with my friend and classmate, Juan Mauricio Venegas, where stoicism is summarize in this sentence,
Well, Crito, if it is pleasing to the gods this way, then let it happen this way. (Epictetus sec. 53).
The most important aspect of piety toward the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and to follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgment. (Epictetus sec. 31).
In this small excerpt, I saw as a reader the fear that the people of Greece had toward the Gods in that time. The excerpt clearly says that you have to willingly obey everything that the gods demand. This shows fear of punishment by the gods if they are refused by a powerless human being such as a philosopher, or a non-philosopher. I also saw, how religion should fit every doctrine or theory that was devised during that era.
Speaking of a philosopher and a non-philosopher, Epictetus strangely stratifies the society in which he lived in as philosopher or non-philosopher. “The position and character of a non-philosopher: he never looks for benefit or harm to come from himself but from things outside. The position and character of a philosopher: he looks for all benefit and harm to come from himself.” (Epictetus sec 48). Epictetus here suggests that being a philosopher was one of the highest statuses you could get in his society, due to the fact that he compares through his handbook the non-philosophers, and the philosophers, where, obviously, the philosopher has always better traits than the non-philosopher.
Finally I must say that since the life of a Stoic is plotted by the gods and written in the cosmos, then really the gods have all the power, which makes me end this analysis in accordance with my friend and classmate, Juan Mauricio Venegas, where stoicism is summarize in this sentence,
Well, Crito, if it is pleasing to the gods this way, then let it happen this way. (Epictetus sec. 53).
Who is the Puppet Master? (Sections 16-30)
Right now, I’ve read up to section 30, and I have concluded that there are two main ideas (amongst others) in the Stoic philosophy. The first one has to do with being indifferent towards another person’s life, or any aspect that is not part of your life plan. This first ideal leads me to the second which is that your life, or anybodies life, is already made up for you by and unknown force which has not been yet disclosed by the speaker.
Again in sections 16, 19 and 23: “Do not hesitate, however, to sympathize with him verbally, and even to moan with him if the occasion arises; but be careful no to moan inwardly.” (Epictetus sec. 16). “… and you yourself will want neither to be a general or a magistrate or a consul, but to be free. And there is one road to this: despising what is not up to us.” (Epictetus sec. 19). “If it ever happens that you turn outward to want to please another person, certainly you have lost your plan of life.” (Epictetus sec. 23). Clearly the three quotes written above show that in order to have a “satisfactory” and “triumphant” life, you have to become estranged with every single aspect that doesn’t concern you such as a moaning person. This senseless way of living a life is completely impossible for a human being to achieve since this animal – and particularly this species – depends on others for their survival. For example, if a baby were to be born, and the mother, who’s only task in life was to conceive and nurture this baby dies, then the baby will be left alone causing it to eventually die. Some may argue that another person will then nurture the baby, but this is impossible, if every person sticks to their plan of life, because no one would be available since the spot of caring for this baby was already taken.
The second main idea in Stoicism is also repeated in section 17, “Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it short, long if he wants it long… What is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else.” (Epictetus sec. 17). This section, clearly states that we are where we are due to a superior force. And, this section proves my theory of the absence of choice in a stoic world. In a play, if you are an actor, you may not change your role, meaning that you can’t choose what to do in life. But, who or what in the world chooses what our role in life is? Do stoics have a God, or is it just "like that"?
A new stoic theory presented as I read from sections 15 to 30, and it was the one of judgment. Judgment of perspective about an event being negative or positive. “When you see someone weeping in grief at the departure of his child or the loss of his property… be ready to say immediately, “What weighs down on this man is not what has happened (since it does not weigh down on someone else), but his judgment about it.” (Epictetus sec. 16). Of all the previous theories of Stoicism, this is the one I completely agree with. This idea is completely true, and it is because of this tendency in life that humans fight and wage wars. For example, politicians all over the world are constantly fighting whether this or that is positive or negative in accordance to their perspectives.
Again in sections 16, 19 and 23: “Do not hesitate, however, to sympathize with him verbally, and even to moan with him if the occasion arises; but be careful no to moan inwardly.” (Epictetus sec. 16). “… and you yourself will want neither to be a general or a magistrate or a consul, but to be free. And there is one road to this: despising what is not up to us.” (Epictetus sec. 19). “If it ever happens that you turn outward to want to please another person, certainly you have lost your plan of life.” (Epictetus sec. 23). Clearly the three quotes written above show that in order to have a “satisfactory” and “triumphant” life, you have to become estranged with every single aspect that doesn’t concern you such as a moaning person. This senseless way of living a life is completely impossible for a human being to achieve since this animal – and particularly this species – depends on others for their survival. For example, if a baby were to be born, and the mother, who’s only task in life was to conceive and nurture this baby dies, then the baby will be left alone causing it to eventually die. Some may argue that another person will then nurture the baby, but this is impossible, if every person sticks to their plan of life, because no one would be available since the spot of caring for this baby was already taken.
The second main idea in Stoicism is also repeated in section 17, “Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it short, long if he wants it long… What is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else.” (Epictetus sec. 17). This section, clearly states that we are where we are due to a superior force. And, this section proves my theory of the absence of choice in a stoic world. In a play, if you are an actor, you may not change your role, meaning that you can’t choose what to do in life. But, who or what in the world chooses what our role in life is? Do stoics have a God, or is it just "like that"?
A new stoic theory presented as I read from sections 15 to 30, and it was the one of judgment. Judgment of perspective about an event being negative or positive. “When you see someone weeping in grief at the departure of his child or the loss of his property… be ready to say immediately, “What weighs down on this man is not what has happened (since it does not weigh down on someone else), but his judgment about it.” (Epictetus sec. 16). Of all the previous theories of Stoicism, this is the one I completely agree with. This idea is completely true, and it is because of this tendency in life that humans fight and wage wars. For example, politicians all over the world are constantly fighting whether this or that is positive or negative in accordance to their perspectives.
Sit Down and Enjoy the Cosmos' Pattern - (Sections 1 to 15)
The Handbook of Epictetus talks about the Stoic teachings and views of life. One of the many teachings encountered in the handbook is the one of achieving a state of complete dissatisfaction.
“… state of mind that the Stoics thought was involved in bringing desires into line completely with the way the world actually is. It was one of understanding fully that nothing, and notably no event that might result in dissatisfaction, could possibly be otherwise that it actually is. Given the awareness of the place of such event in the whole pattern of the cosmos, one could be quite unable to conceive of the events being any different.” (Epictetus 3).
This quote compiles together in a few sentence the intricate Stoic belief of dissatisfaction. It states that in order to be completely satisfy about life you’d have to know the nature of the occurrences in life, and be able to acknowledge that they will eventually happen this way, regardless of your efforts to change that event; however, I don’t see why knowing what will come free you from a state of dissatisfaction. Knowing that what will come can’t be changed doesn’t free me of my dissatisfaction about life at all. If I know that my dearest friend will die in two hours, and that there is absolutely nothing I can do, I would still be dissatisfied of what will come next (my friend’s death). I will not be surprised, but I will be very dissatisfied.
Also, mentioning that the cosmos hold the pattern to the events that will happen in life, made me think back to the friendly Tralfamadorians, and their way of accepting things as they simply are. In accordance to the Stoics’ belief about a completely dissatisfied state of being, the Tralfamadorians would be in that state already, due to the fact that they are able to see life in the fourth dimension. And, by being able to do this, they know and understand the events to come; however, then again, I don’t agree with the Stoics. The Tralfamadorians may have learned to accept the future events as they are going to be, but they don’t seem satisfy of what will come. For example, why in the world will the Tralfamadorians be O.K. with the irrevocable fact that they will eventually destroy the universe and every molecule of life in it? This happening obviously doesn’t make them happy at all.
“Some things are up to us and some are not” (Epictetus Sec. 1) It is with this sentence that the first section of the Handbook of Epictetus starts with. It brought my attention, because it signifies the causes for many world problems in the human race. For example, if Hitler would’ve accepted the fact that it wasn’t up to him, or anybody, to decide that the Jews, or any race besides the German, were dangerous, the Second World War would of probably not occurred; however, if everybody would understand this quote about the things that are up to us and the ones that are not, the world would become an indifferent world. Every individual will eventually create his/her own world to care for. As a consequence, most, if not all, of the social, political, economical and environmental conflicts that the human race now faces will disappear taking along every emotion that makes life worth living. Basically, if I everybody carries out their tasks in satisfactory manner, every single problem will be solved in the way that the person in charge of solving it sees fit. This will cause no dispute or interaction with any other individual, because everybody will be concentrated with their tasks. Also, as a reaction to this “perfect” world, emotions about somebody else will disappear leaving us in a “perfect” but lifeless world.
However, there is also some sense of truth in this particular quote that, if applied, will make the world better. If this phrase is interpreted in a “Let It Be” kind of way, it will be positive. For example, if I don’t like a particular color, tough, I will have to learn to accept that that color exists and that there is nothing I can do to change that. Then, when the stage of acceptance is covered, I will eventually learn to live in harmony with the color I dislike.
“Illness interferes with the body, no with one’s faculty of choice, unless that faculty of choice wishes it to.” (Epictetus Sec 9). Choice/Free Will is mentioned in this sentence, making it an awkward sentence. At the beginning of the Handbook of Epictetus, the speaker mentioned that, although humans haven’t found it yet, destiny or every person’s life is written in the cosmos. So, if this is true, then why would humans have the faculty of choice? Logically, if every single event is premeditated, then nothing may be chosen, because everything is already sorted out for us by a superior force. I really don’t understand this apparent contradiction in the Stoic philosophy. As a consequence of having your life already CHOSEN for you, you will then be sucked in the same surprise-less world that the Tralfamadorians were, where choice/free will is completely absent. And yes, you as a naive human may think that you can choose whether to eat soup or not, the choice that you make was really already done for you (in a Stoic perspective).
“… state of mind that the Stoics thought was involved in bringing desires into line completely with the way the world actually is. It was one of understanding fully that nothing, and notably no event that might result in dissatisfaction, could possibly be otherwise that it actually is. Given the awareness of the place of such event in the whole pattern of the cosmos, one could be quite unable to conceive of the events being any different.” (Epictetus 3).
This quote compiles together in a few sentence the intricate Stoic belief of dissatisfaction. It states that in order to be completely satisfy about life you’d have to know the nature of the occurrences in life, and be able to acknowledge that they will eventually happen this way, regardless of your efforts to change that event; however, I don’t see why knowing what will come free you from a state of dissatisfaction. Knowing that what will come can’t be changed doesn’t free me of my dissatisfaction about life at all. If I know that my dearest friend will die in two hours, and that there is absolutely nothing I can do, I would still be dissatisfied of what will come next (my friend’s death). I will not be surprised, but I will be very dissatisfied.
Also, mentioning that the cosmos hold the pattern to the events that will happen in life, made me think back to the friendly Tralfamadorians, and their way of accepting things as they simply are. In accordance to the Stoics’ belief about a completely dissatisfied state of being, the Tralfamadorians would be in that state already, due to the fact that they are able to see life in the fourth dimension. And, by being able to do this, they know and understand the events to come; however, then again, I don’t agree with the Stoics. The Tralfamadorians may have learned to accept the future events as they are going to be, but they don’t seem satisfy of what will come. For example, why in the world will the Tralfamadorians be O.K. with the irrevocable fact that they will eventually destroy the universe and every molecule of life in it? This happening obviously doesn’t make them happy at all.
“Some things are up to us and some are not” (Epictetus Sec. 1) It is with this sentence that the first section of the Handbook of Epictetus starts with. It brought my attention, because it signifies the causes for many world problems in the human race. For example, if Hitler would’ve accepted the fact that it wasn’t up to him, or anybody, to decide that the Jews, or any race besides the German, were dangerous, the Second World War would of probably not occurred; however, if everybody would understand this quote about the things that are up to us and the ones that are not, the world would become an indifferent world. Every individual will eventually create his/her own world to care for. As a consequence, most, if not all, of the social, political, economical and environmental conflicts that the human race now faces will disappear taking along every emotion that makes life worth living. Basically, if I everybody carries out their tasks in satisfactory manner, every single problem will be solved in the way that the person in charge of solving it sees fit. This will cause no dispute or interaction with any other individual, because everybody will be concentrated with their tasks. Also, as a reaction to this “perfect” world, emotions about somebody else will disappear leaving us in a “perfect” but lifeless world.
However, there is also some sense of truth in this particular quote that, if applied, will make the world better. If this phrase is interpreted in a “Let It Be” kind of way, it will be positive. For example, if I don’t like a particular color, tough, I will have to learn to accept that that color exists and that there is nothing I can do to change that. Then, when the stage of acceptance is covered, I will eventually learn to live in harmony with the color I dislike.
“Illness interferes with the body, no with one’s faculty of choice, unless that faculty of choice wishes it to.” (Epictetus Sec 9). Choice/Free Will is mentioned in this sentence, making it an awkward sentence. At the beginning of the Handbook of Epictetus, the speaker mentioned that, although humans haven’t found it yet, destiny or every person’s life is written in the cosmos. So, if this is true, then why would humans have the faculty of choice? Logically, if every single event is premeditated, then nothing may be chosen, because everything is already sorted out for us by a superior force. I really don’t understand this apparent contradiction in the Stoic philosophy. As a consequence of having your life already CHOSEN for you, you will then be sucked in the same surprise-less world that the Tralfamadorians were, where choice/free will is completely absent. And yes, you as a naive human may think that you can choose whether to eat soup or not, the choice that you make was really already done for you (in a Stoic perspective).
Reading Blog: Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (Part IV.)
In this novel by Jonathan Swift the concept of an ideological paradise, or a Utopia, is clearly reflected through the attitude that the protagonist has toward his species. A Utopia is an impossible thing to achieve in a society (even more if it is composed by humans), however it can be achieved in a person’s mind. Gulliver is a perfect case of what an individual utopia would be. Well, he believes that the country of the Houyhnhnms is perfect, due to the fact that everybody fully completes and follows a social contract in order to live in harmony. He even states that the word evil doesn’t even exist in the Houyhnhnm’s dictionary, “I know whether it may be worth observing, that the Houyhnhnms have no Word in their Language to express any thing that is Evil, except what they borrow from the Deformities or ill Qualities of the Yahoos.” (Swift 4). However, I strongly disagree with Gulliver’s utopist view about his loving country (although not native), since the Houyhnhnms hold him as a slave, they treat him as a inferior race, and even take from him the right to act freely: “I had the Favour of being admitted to several Houyhnhnms, who came to visit or dine with my Master; where his Honour graciously suffered me to wait in the Room…” (Swift 5). In my opinion the Houyhnhnms’ land is far from being a utopia, since it doesn’t conserve any kind of equality with other races. And yeah, they may live in peace, but this doesn’t mean it is a utopia, and if this is considered a utopia, then Norway, and any peaceful country is a utopia, don you think?
Gulliver also criticizes the barbarous ways in which the Yahoo’s submitted to their will their conquered nations. “And this execrable Crew of Butchers employed so pious an Expedition, is a modern Colony sent to convert and civilize and idolatrous and barbarous People.” (Swift 17). This is a completely ironic statement made by Gulliver, or didn’t the Houyhnhnms hunted down in a savage way the Yahoo’s, and then kept their babies to use them as slaves? Isn’t this inhumane, and “Yahoo” like? “That the Houyhnhnms to get rid of this Evil, made a general Hunting, and at last enclosed the whole Herd; and destroying the old Ones, every Houyhnhnm kept two young Ones in a Kennel, and brought them to such degree of Tameness, as an Animal so savage by Nature can be capable of acquiring; using them for Draught and Carriage.” (Swift 1).
I found very awkward the way in which Gulliver after only being three years away from his country of birth, he gathered so much hatred towards the ones of his own species. This event reminded me of Tarzan, who instead of feeling a certain repugnancy over his own species. He felt a certain attraction towards finding out more about himself and the Homo sapiens. Then, when Gulliver was home, he insisted and desperately tried to keep the Houyhnhnms traditions and costumes intact in his mind, reason for why he tried to impose these costumes on his family. However, Gulliver by blindly trying to seek his life as a “Houyhnhnm”, he basically creates a regime in his house where he “enslaved” his own family, to the point that he even prohibited them to be near him. “I began last Week to permit my Wife to sit at Dinner with me, at the farthest End of a long Table…” (Swift 18).
Gulliver also criticizes the barbarous ways in which the Yahoo’s submitted to their will their conquered nations. “And this execrable Crew of Butchers employed so pious an Expedition, is a modern Colony sent to convert and civilize and idolatrous and barbarous People.” (Swift 17). This is a completely ironic statement made by Gulliver, or didn’t the Houyhnhnms hunted down in a savage way the Yahoo’s, and then kept their babies to use them as slaves? Isn’t this inhumane, and “Yahoo” like? “That the Houyhnhnms to get rid of this Evil, made a general Hunting, and at last enclosed the whole Herd; and destroying the old Ones, every Houyhnhnm kept two young Ones in a Kennel, and brought them to such degree of Tameness, as an Animal so savage by Nature can be capable of acquiring; using them for Draught and Carriage.” (Swift 1).
I found very awkward the way in which Gulliver after only being three years away from his country of birth, he gathered so much hatred towards the ones of his own species. This event reminded me of Tarzan, who instead of feeling a certain repugnancy over his own species. He felt a certain attraction towards finding out more about himself and the Homo sapiens. Then, when Gulliver was home, he insisted and desperately tried to keep the Houyhnhnms traditions and costumes intact in his mind, reason for why he tried to impose these costumes on his family. However, Gulliver by blindly trying to seek his life as a “Houyhnhnm”, he basically creates a regime in his house where he “enslaved” his own family, to the point that he even prohibited them to be near him. “I began last Week to permit my Wife to sit at Dinner with me, at the farthest End of a long Table…” (Swift 18).
Reading Blog: Slaughter House - Five (Pg. 182-215)
(Mr. Tangen, I’m sorry to inform you that the article you requested us to talk about in this blog was unable to be open by my computer. It said that the page was temporarily unavailable).
Throughout the ending of this antiwar book, a finally realized the symbolic meaning of Billy’s squalid figure, and Valencia’s overwhelming shape and weight. In my opinion, Billy’s physical shape resembles the condition in which the world was in during the outbreak of World War II, and during its time being. The world powers, such as Britain, Russia, France and mostly Germany, got completely drained by the demands that the Second World War brought to each country. During the fighting of this war, every European country that participated in the war got to the pitiful state which Billy was constantly in. In the other hand, Valencia represents the war itself, which, although it could be handled by Billy, it was very big and unwanted, just like WWII. Billy’s plain crash then means the rather abrupt ending of the war (reason why Valencia died so quick). Finally, after Billy’s plain crash, his lament full sate was a metaphor of the condition in which the European powers and the world, was left after the ending of WWII. People, which is resembled by Rumfoord (Billy’s hospital roommate), thinks that humanity would never recover from such crisis; however through time they do, just like Billy’s case.
I also noticed as I ended this book, the Kilgore Trout was in fact Vonnegut’s character and thoughts reflected through Kilgore Trout. Well, they seem to have “identical” characteristics. Just like Vonnegut, Trout isn’t a very successful author; however, in the end, Trout’s books are displayed in a bookstore’s frontal window. This book, is about a couple of Earthling’s kidnapped by some aliens, and then displayed in a zoo, event which is very similar to what happened with Billy and Montana Wildhack in Tralfamadore. “The name of the book was The Big Board. He got a few paragraphs into it, and then he realized that he had read it before—years ago, in the veterans’ hospital. It was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212.” (Vonnegut 201).
Finally, I really liked the ending of this book, since it gives it a Tralfamadorian touch. It leaves the reader thinking in a Tralfamdorian way, which is, that there is no specific chronology between events. This book keeps you seeing this story as I imagine a Tralfamadorian seeing it, with no specific fourth dimension.
Throughout the ending of this antiwar book, a finally realized the symbolic meaning of Billy’s squalid figure, and Valencia’s overwhelming shape and weight. In my opinion, Billy’s physical shape resembles the condition in which the world was in during the outbreak of World War II, and during its time being. The world powers, such as Britain, Russia, France and mostly Germany, got completely drained by the demands that the Second World War brought to each country. During the fighting of this war, every European country that participated in the war got to the pitiful state which Billy was constantly in. In the other hand, Valencia represents the war itself, which, although it could be handled by Billy, it was very big and unwanted, just like WWII. Billy’s plain crash then means the rather abrupt ending of the war (reason why Valencia died so quick). Finally, after Billy’s plain crash, his lament full sate was a metaphor of the condition in which the European powers and the world, was left after the ending of WWII. People, which is resembled by Rumfoord (Billy’s hospital roommate), thinks that humanity would never recover from such crisis; however through time they do, just like Billy’s case.
I also noticed as I ended this book, the Kilgore Trout was in fact Vonnegut’s character and thoughts reflected through Kilgore Trout. Well, they seem to have “identical” characteristics. Just like Vonnegut, Trout isn’t a very successful author; however, in the end, Trout’s books are displayed in a bookstore’s frontal window. This book, is about a couple of Earthling’s kidnapped by some aliens, and then displayed in a zoo, event which is very similar to what happened with Billy and Montana Wildhack in Tralfamadore. “The name of the book was The Big Board. He got a few paragraphs into it, and then he realized that he had read it before—years ago, in the veterans’ hospital. It was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212.” (Vonnegut 201).
Finally, I really liked the ending of this book, since it gives it a Tralfamadorian touch. It leaves the reader thinking in a Tralfamdorian way, which is, that there is no specific chronology between events. This book keeps you seeing this story as I imagine a Tralfamadorian seeing it, with no specific fourth dimension.
Reading Blog: Slaughter House - Five (Pg. 153-182)
Kilgore Trout is a very influential and important character in Vonnegut’s book, since he is used as a mediator by the author to express and most of the times mock the American society throughout his book. For example, Kilgore Trout’s book Gutless Wonder is a parody of an army of robots that weren’t accepted in society, not by the fact that they lacked a conscious, but because they had a terrible halitosis. “Trout’s leading robot looked like a human being, and could talk and dance and so on, and go out with girls. And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable. But then he cleared that up, and he was welcomed to the human race.” (Vonnegut 168). The robots are basically a metaphor of the North American soldiers that savagely threw napalm on the Vietnamese during the war of Vietnam, and then felt as if they were doing the right thing. Vonnegut attacks the uncivilized behavior of the Americans comparing them with steel robots who were incapable to feel any emotion such as merci; however, that isn’t Vonnegut strongest attack, the author emphasizes more on the fact that the United States civilians instead of discriminating the U.S. soldiers for their merciless frenzies, they are rejected due to the fact that they have bad breath. Bad breath is a simple, and rather common, condition of the human beings, but the lack of feelings isn’t a common condition in people.
Once again Kilgore Trout is used by Vonnegut as the way to mock society, and, in this particular case, to mock the Christians.
That’s right. And I’m not the only one who’s listening. God is listening, too. And on Judgment Day he’s gong to tell you all the things you said and did. If it turns out they’re bat this instead of good things, that’s too bad for you, because you’ll burn forever and ever. The burning never stops hurting.
Poor Maggie turned gray. She believed that, too, and was petrified.
Kilgore Trout laughed uproariously. (Vonnegut 172).
In this excerpt, Kilgore literally laughs on Maggie’s face for believing the lies he had just said, which in fact, are the believes of all medieval Christians, and some in the present.
“… as though you all of a sudden realized you were standing on thin air.” (Vonnegut 175). This quote reflects mankind, or any living thing for that matter. We are always standing on the thin air of life, which will eventually fall at any time, and bring us our sudden death. Humans, for the simple fact that they rely heavily in other things, will always be on thin air, since the thing they depend on, depend on another things (and so on) causing a chain reaction if one fails. For example, Colombian industry relies on the price of the dollar, which varies depending on the global consumption of people. This implies that if the people acquire, for any given reason, many dollars, then the price of this currency will fall, causing as a direct action the bankruptcy of the Colombian industries, and so on and so forth.
In contrast to the mockery that Vonnegut handles against the United States society, Vonnegut places the German society in a very high and noble place, making it seem as if they were almost heavenly. “The blind innkeeper said that the Americans could sleep in his stable that night, and he gave them soup and ersatz coffee and a little beer. Then he came out to the stable to listen to them bedding down in the straw.” (Vonnegut 181). Here, the quote clearly implies that the Germans treat the Americans, although they have recently demolished Dresden, with respect and tolerance. This German behavior can also be seen throughout the book, in the ways the American prisoners of war are treated by the Germans (relatively good).
Once again Kilgore Trout is used by Vonnegut as the way to mock society, and, in this particular case, to mock the Christians.
That’s right. And I’m not the only one who’s listening. God is listening, too. And on Judgment Day he’s gong to tell you all the things you said and did. If it turns out they’re bat this instead of good things, that’s too bad for you, because you’ll burn forever and ever. The burning never stops hurting.
Poor Maggie turned gray. She believed that, too, and was petrified.
Kilgore Trout laughed uproariously. (Vonnegut 172).
In this excerpt, Kilgore literally laughs on Maggie’s face for believing the lies he had just said, which in fact, are the believes of all medieval Christians, and some in the present.
“… as though you all of a sudden realized you were standing on thin air.” (Vonnegut 175). This quote reflects mankind, or any living thing for that matter. We are always standing on the thin air of life, which will eventually fall at any time, and bring us our sudden death. Humans, for the simple fact that they rely heavily in other things, will always be on thin air, since the thing they depend on, depend on another things (and so on) causing a chain reaction if one fails. For example, Colombian industry relies on the price of the dollar, which varies depending on the global consumption of people. This implies that if the people acquire, for any given reason, many dollars, then the price of this currency will fall, causing as a direct action the bankruptcy of the Colombian industries, and so on and so forth.
In contrast to the mockery that Vonnegut handles against the United States society, Vonnegut places the German society in a very high and noble place, making it seem as if they were almost heavenly. “The blind innkeeper said that the Americans could sleep in his stable that night, and he gave them soup and ersatz coffee and a little beer. Then he came out to the stable to listen to them bedding down in the straw.” (Vonnegut 181). Here, the quote clearly implies that the Germans treat the Americans, although they have recently demolished Dresden, with respect and tolerance. This German behavior can also be seen throughout the book, in the ways the American prisoners of war are treated by the Germans (relatively good).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)