"It is demonstrable," he would say, "that things cannot be other than as they are; for, since everything is made to serve an end, everything is necessarily for the best of all ends. Observe how noses were formed to support spectacles, therefore we have spectacles. Legs are clearly devised for the wearing of breeches, therefore we wear breeches...consequently, those who have argued that all is well have been talking nonsense; they should have said that all is for the best." (4)
Candide: or Optimism, published in 1759, is Voltaire's satirical attack on the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (look at the notes for the title page on 121). It's also an old man's (Voltaire was 65 when he wrote this) rumination on the state of the world and, per our study so far, how to live in it. Mookie, Sal, Buggin' Out, Jade, Mother-Sister, Da Mayor, Radio Raheem, the cops; Vivian, Jason, Susie, E.M. Ashford; Ned, Bruce, Tommy, Mickey, Felix, Emma, Ben: this has been the underlying issue, question, for all of them. Or, as Larry Kramer asks, as does Auden in his poem that gave The Normal Heart its title:
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?
All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.
"We must love another or die." That's one answer to the question Voltaire, Spike Lee, Margaret Edson, and Larry Kramer pose.
So Voltaire and his classic satire. Quick couple questions:
1. Reactions to the book so far? What jumped out at you in these chapters? Quote in addressing this question.
2. So far: is anything funny? Yes: what? No: what is making this not humorous?
3. Is Candide's world the best possible world? Why or why not in 2-3 sentences.
Just something...different. Leonard Bernstein, as I said in class, conceived of an opera based on this book in 1956. The lyrics are by poet Richard Wilbur. Here is the opening song. See what you think.
See you all tomorrow.
Just something...different. Leonard Bernstein, as I said in class, conceived of an opera based on this book in 1956. The lyrics are by poet Richard Wilbur. Here is the opening song. See what you think.
See you all tomorrow.
1. The ridiculousness of the characters jumped out at me. I missed class today, and I forgot that this book was a parody, so when I started reading immediately the quote, "Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings." made me laugh. So far, all of the characters use flawed logic and act they like are deep thinkers. The book is surprisingly funny. Another characteristic of the book that jumped out at me was the pace. The story moves quickly, and even in the first chunk, so many events have taken place.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I think the book is funny so far. The chunk I quoted in my answer above made me laugh. Pangloss, especially because he has the air of someone who knows what he is talking about, and he is a professor. Yet ironically, all of his ideas and advice don't make any sense. Also, the writing seems to make the story dramatic in order to have a comedic effect. In the scene in Chapter 2, when Candide is walking away after being banished, Voltaire writes that Candide, " thus driven out of this terrestrial paradise, rambled a long time without knowing where he went; sometimes he raised his eyes, all bedewed with tears, towards heaven, and sometimes he cast a melancholy look towards the magnificent castle, where dwelt the fairest of young baronesses". This is quite dramatic and sad for a boy who was just introduced, and who had only one encounter with a girl before leaving her. It seemed humorous to me.
3. At the moment, Candide's world seems like a terrible place to be. Every character we have met so far uses flawed logic to make decisions, and their decisions often include using unnecessary violence. Also, these characters seem to have very little understanding of the world around them.
1. I’m enjoying the book so far. I like the writing - I find it funny and quite engaging (the pace of the story helps too). I’m intrigued by some of the ideas Voltaire brings to light, especially the idea that everything happens for a reason, thus creating the best world. The logic that Candide and Pangloss explain behind these ideas reminds me of the philosophy class we took last year, like the line “those who have argued that all is well have been talking nonsense: they should have said that all is for the best”. While it does intrigue me (and I disagree with the logic), it does make my head spin a little too. I’m excited to see how the book progresses, I think it’ll bring up some interesting ideas but also be fun to read.
ReplyDelete2. I’ve found a lot of Voltaire’s descriptions and manners of writing funny thus far, like the scene where Cunégonde sees Pangloss having sex with her mother’s chambermaid (although Voltaire describes this much more cleverly). I like how he is almost cryptic with his writing, or at least not explicitly describing a certain scene, but in a way that the message is clear, as if him and the readers are in on a joke together. I think sometimes descriptions like these appear to border on insensitivity, depending on the reader, especially if he seems to be making a joke by writing about something serious in a light-hearted manner. I can’t recall reading anything like this, but I could see something like that happening potentially.
3. I don’t think the world that they are living in is the best possible world, mainly because Voltaire’s descriptions of some of the terrors that occurred really stayed in my mind. I also agree with Mira when she says that the logic of the characters is flawed. I think one interesting effect of the pace of the book is that it leaves little time for Candide to reflect upon his emotions, as far as we can see. While I think this could soften the blow of some of the hardships Candide is facing and make the book in general a little lighter (and make their world seem better), this may detract a bit from the story and in reality does not make their world a better place to be.
1. I don’t think I have every read anything quite like this before. It is written in a unique voice—fast-paced, matter-of-fact, indifferent and desensitized to the horrific events of the story. The story is almost too quick for me; I feel like I cannot picture the events in a concrete manner because they happen so fast. The parts that jumped out to me were the philosophical lines. They were for me a breath of fresh air in this text, thoughtful and careful as opposed to the brusquer narration of the story. I especially like what Pangloss says to Candide about love: “Love is its name: love, consoler of humankind, preserver of the universe, soul of all sentient beings, sweet love”, and Candide’s response: “But how can so beautiful a cause have produced so abominable an effect?” (11). To me, these lines speak to so much of the pain we as humans experience due to one another.
ReplyDelete2. I have not found anything all that funny, I think because it is so gruesome. It is painful to read about dismemberment and brains flooding the streets—I was more disgusted than amused. The one thing I did find funny was that Pangloss taught “metaphysico-theologio-cosmo-nigology” (4), a combination of almost every philosophical discipline (I like the long, odd word). The way the relationship between Candide and Cunégonde is described as “innocent” was also humorous to me: “innocently the young man kissed the young lady’s hand” (5). It is ironic because the deed is so clearly heinous in this world based on the extreme repercussions Candide has to face yet the narrator makes it wound like it was nothing, just an innocent action (which I guess it is—there is nothing wrong with having a relationship with someone you love).
3. I think that Candide’s world is far from the best possible world. In fact, it is close to the worst possible world. Everything goes wrong for him—he gets kicked out of his home, he is forced to fight in the army and then beat brutally, the one person who is kind to him in Holland is killed by a cruel soldier—Candide is extremely unlucky (and perhaps this is the irony that is meant to be funny but I do not quite get yet).
I think what jumped out at me most is the general way it’s written as a satire. The only other thing I’ve read in the style is Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal. That said, Swift’s essay was somewhat clearer about the message it was sending, the joke it was making and the questions it was posing. This book, on the contrary, isn’t quite so obvious. The whole idea that “free will can coexist with absolute necessity” (15) is interesting, but I still haven’t quite figured out what it all means yet, nor do I even know if I should consider this line important to the overall point of the book, if necessity is even a central theme, but I don’t think I’m supposed to. We aren’t very far in the book so far, and I think that as I become more accustomed to this style, the meaning will present itself more clearly.
ReplyDeleteI think what’s funny about this book has less to do with the events, as almost all are truly horrible, and more to do with the way in which these events are presented to us. He talks of rape and murder as though they’re as common place as anything. We know by hearing Candide’s response to these massacres that they are indeed not common nor are they acceptable, but the nature of satire is to present issues in ways that make their general acceptability absurd, and in that respect, this book succeeds in attaining humor through this literary device, but whether we’re actually supposed to take this is funny isn’t clear. I get that it’s presented in a humorous manner, but the issues it brings up are not in the least bit laughable.
It absolutely is not...but at the same time, part of the logic their philosophy employs is that being the only one of a certain thing makes it the best of that thing, and this world is not far enough from our own to be considered an entirely different world, and if we’re not including alternate universes, then this is the only world in existence, therefore, by their logic, it is the best possible world. I may be interpreting this totally incorrectly, but if we were to judge this world based on the logic it provides, then I think it makes some sense to say that it is the best.
1. This is pretty funny, in an odd way. Voltaire shows a wide range of terrible situations to be in, which is not funny. However, the whole time we can laugh at Pangloss and his insistence on sticking to Optimism, despite all the evidence that even if this is the best of all possible worlds it isn't a very good one.. He maintains that "'Private ills make up the general good, so that the greater the sum of private ills the better everything is" (12). This persistence is both ridiculous and effective. Even if he's wrong, which is Voltaire's point, he keeps up his spirits in a way no one else could.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. As I said before, the juxtaposition of suffering and the optimism is both alarming and ridiculous. The idea that to say that legs were made for the wearing of pants and so there are pants is somehow sage philosophy is hilarious. We both see what Voltaire views as false, this idea that this is the best of all possible worlds, ridiculed, and we see his view of the truth.
3. In all likelihood, no. Everywhere Candide has gone, there has been injustice or violence or both. No one cares about what an individual wants or the pain that they feel, and forces others to comply with their beliefs. The only person Candide meets on his journey who is portrayed as virtuous and openminded is the anabaptist, and anyone could do what he does.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I like it! Candide is arguably both the happiest and the most brutal story we’ve done thus far. The moment Candide walks away from the army stands out to me. "One fine spring day he took it into his head to go for a long walk, simply by putting one foot in front of the other, in the belief that it was a privilege of the human as of the animal species to use its legs as it pleases." Candide is avoiding something, even when his philosophy tells him that all is as it should be. He describes his escape as marveling at the freedom of humans to walk as they do, but as he marvels he puts distance between himself and the horrors of war, so I can’t imagine that he is ONLY marveling. It jumped at me because Candide is running from his own ideology, but refuses to recognize it as doing so.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, it is funny, in a morbid sort of way. Candide is funny in the way that all satire is - through extremes. Everyone who boasts a profession or an ability is immediately recognized as the ultimate in the field - hence Pangloss teaches “metaphysico-theologio-cosmo-nigology,” rather than plain old philosophy. Candide is waltzing through life content and completely confident in the knowledge that everything is as it should be, and everything is perfect. This idea is easy enough to hold when you live in a castle near the love of your life, but I’d have expected him to shy away from the philosophy when he was kicked out. He clings to it regardless, and that’s where the hilarity starts. Horrible, awful things are happening - torture, death, and brutality to the extreme, all described through rose-tinted glasses. BEYOND rose-tinted - it’s like Candide can’t see anything at all! Despite every tragedy that befalls him, and those around him, he clings to his philosophy and excuses the horrors rather than adjusting his philosophy to fit them. When the kind anabaptist is left to drown, Pangloss reassures Candide that this was as it should be, because the bay itself was created just so the anabaptist could one day drown in it. It makes absolutely no sense, but Candide accepts it. The extent to which everyone dedicates themselves to whatever they’re doing is beyond absurd, and that makes it funny!
3. That depends on if you think there could possibly BE other worlds. If it is THE ONLY possible world, then it is the best possible and the worst possible simultaneously! If it is just one of many possible, what’s to stop the utopias we form in our minds from being true possibilities?
1. I love it so far. I didn’t know anything about Voltaire going into it, so for some reason I assumed that the prose would be rather dry. But it’s quite the opposite: witty, quick, ridiculous, and inappropriate. I love the depiction of Candide and our glimpses into his thought-processes. My favorite line so far is on page six, when Candide, a soldier in the Bulgar army, “took it into his head to go for a long walk, simply by putting one foot in front of the other, in the belief that it was a privilege of the human as of the animal species to use its legs as it pleases.” It strikes me how I simultaneously realize that this walk is a terrible idea given his current situation and am forced to agree with his simple logic and perfectly reasonable assumption that walking is a basic human right. I don’t know why, but that just tickles me. I also love the character of Pangloss, who repeatedly asserts that everything was designed for a reason, even as the world is literally crumbling around him.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I think this book is hilarious. The style of writing is so factual and straightforward, which, when combined with the absurd content, results in a quite engaging and humorous effect. I love how almost every line has a hidden joke just waiting to be deciphered, like the whole 71 quarterings description on page one. Of course, some of the jokes are more overt, like the thinly veiled sex scene between Candide’s tutor and the maid.
3. Maybe. It certainly doesn’t seem ideal, considering all the bloodshed and suffering going on around Candide, but we have no way of knowing whether or not a better world is possible. Voltaire uses this book to criticize Leibniz for his blind insistence that this world must be the best one possible, which is a silly assumption on Leibniz’s part, given our limited understanding of God, the cosmos, etc. However, due to our limited knowledge, we also cannot definitively say that this is not the best possible world.
As Nell has already said in her blog post, the story is ridiculous. But better so, it makes itself ridiculous in a fashion that makes it seem like normalcy. This “normal” absurdity makes the Candide a joy to read(similar to Catch-22): you never know what to expect. This is true not only of the plot devices, but also pf Voltaire's smaller jabs. For example, at the end of chapter one, a “feeling of consternation spread over this most magnificent and most agreeable of all possible castles” after Candide was driven violently from the castle and Cunegonde was hit upon her ears. Voltaire had already critiqued Leibniz' theory of Optimism earlier in the chapter, but this smaller, passing use of irony helps make the absurdity more secure.
ReplyDeleteMany things are funny. I do feel like some of the jokes are going over my head, but Voltaire's rampant irony is hard to miss. One of my favorites so far is the scene in which Candide goes for a walk to ponder his own “heroism” and the human freedom to walk when he is suddenly overtaken and subdued by four other “heroes,” likely because of his choice to walk away from his military camp.
Absolutely not. As I demonstrated earlier, Candide takes this notion of the optimal world and makes fun of it through irony, disqualifying the fact that the world could be the best possible one. Although, I think it is humorous to entertain the idea that this world is the best possible of all worlds, which Voltaire certainly makes easy with the upbeat(optimistic?) tone of the novel. As a result, you realize that this “best” world is an awfully bad one.
1. I really like the book so far. It's funny and the way the characters (especially Candide) look at the world is pretty amusing. They're so convinced that their province is the best place in the world that they jump to conclusions that would be ridiculous if not for our knowledge of the satirical aspect of the book. The most blatant example of this is when Candide describes Pangloss as “the greatest philosopher in the province and, therefore, in the world” (4). Apparently it's so obvious, it needn't an explanation.
ReplyDelete2. I think what makes the book funny so far is the logic –or lack thereof– behind the conclusions and philosophies in the world of Candide. Like I said in my previous answer, I found myself laughing at the naiveness of the characters. I also think the pace of the book adds to the sort of blunt nature of its humor. I laughed at things like the Baron kicking Candide out of the castle because Voltaire described them in such a quick manor which made the Baron seem rash and unreasonable. The same situation, if dragged out into a paragraph or so could make the Baron seem justified, but the straightforward language that Voltaire used does the opposite.
3. It is most certainly not the best possible world. Though entertaining at first, I think the humor will slightly wear off as the book goes on because the realization of all the excess violence will start setting in. My conclusion is obviously based on our reality today, but I think it's important to note –like many others did in this blog– that the world of Candide may not be our world.
1. What really jumped out at me was the way it was written. It’s refreshing to read something that doesn’t focus a lot on developing characters. I love how Volataire tells to describe the characters instead of shows. I’m really able to focus on what Voltaire is trying to say about society without being drawn into individual characters. I really love this characterization of the baroness: “The Baroness, who weighed approximately three hundred and fifty pounds, and consequently basked in very great esteem, performed the honours of the house with a dignity that made her all the more imposing.” (3)
ReplyDelete2. I do think this book is funny. The absurdity of it all is a little funny, and maybe how everything seems really exaggerated. I’m actually finding the mix of horrific events and humor enjoyable to read. I think it is funny in the way satires should be and I am definitely enjoying the humor so far.
3. I am forced to agree with Pangloss and Candide that the world they are currently living is the best possible world because it is the only world that exists at the moment. However, I don’t agree with their life philosophy that comes from this knowledge that our world is the only world and therefore the best world. The best world is also the worst world. Accepting that the world is the best possible world and floating passively through it does not seem like the best way to live life.
1. I like it. I think it makes some pretty interesting observations about society, but not obvious ones that every lit book makes. The way Candide is structured, as almost a group of short stories, lets Voltaire make a lot of small subtle points that might not ever get brought up. What jumps out at me so far is how casually the book mentions hardship and horrific events. I know that sackings of cities and rape and other disasters mentioned in Candide were more common historically, but at the same time I feel like normally there should be some emotion. However, I'm not missing emotion. I think by abstaining from making everything about how sad Candide is, Voltaire can philosophize over the course of the book and focus on society instead of characters. It also jumped to at me how completely arbitrary everything seems. Jacques, who Candide seemed to really like, died because Canded was "Prevented by" Pangloss who was "demonstrat[ing] to him that the Bay of Lisbon had been made on purpose for the Anabaptist to be drowned" I guess this kind of gets back to the lack of emotion in the book, because if Voltaire had focused on that more than Candide would have been forced to go after him, but because its less about Candide and more about what Voltaire wants to say I think its okay if things are arbitrary.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, things are funny. Things are just so absurd at times that it feels impossible not to laugh. Like when Jacques dies or when Candide asks to see Cunegonde's bruise, its almost like humor is the only option. I wonder if that's part of Voltaire's point in making the book - that he's trying to show how we laugh in the face of others' hardship instead of acknowledging it? However, I do get that that's a common thread in all satires so maybe its less of a truth for Candide and more of a wider human truth.
3. Maybe. While I've already seen more human suffering in this book than all of our last four books and movies combined, I'm not sure you can make a case that there's a better world out there. I mean, it's probably better in the United States now than it was in medieval Europe, but doesn't US prosperity economically rely on poverty in developing countries? I guess I'm wondering if there's some sort of constant of human suffering.
1) This book is ridiculously fast paced. In only twelve pages, our protagonist has was kicked out of a castle, adopted by the Bulgars, fought in a war, spent time homeless, and survived a ship wreck. So much has happened that I'm fairly sure I missed something. Right now it's causing me to miss details, forcing me to go back and read again and again. Ultimately, I feel this takes away from the effect the fast paced language is supposed to have, but I’m sure I'll adjust eventually. The philosophy of Pangloss, especially in how it's affected Candide, has also popped out at me. The scene where Candid is particularly interesting. “It was Necessary that I be chased away from Mademoiselle Cunégonde, and have to run the gauntlet, and necessary that I beg for my bread until such time I can earn it; none of this could have been otherwise.” Even horrible things that happen, such as running the gauntlet or being in a shipwreck. Are justified in this method of reasoning. Candide having this mindset also helps the story move as fast as it does. Everything happens for a reason to him, so he doesn't ponder on events too long. This allows for the story to move on from events quickly, just as Candide does. I expect this mindset to be tested throughout the story.
ReplyDelete2) Nothing specific to me is funny. The story itself, the fact that a novel like this one even exists, is what humors me. Then again, a satire should probably have that affect on you. The sheer ridiculousness of the things that happen forces you not to take anything seriously. Candide has been poor, kicked out of his home, AND went through hundreds, maybe thousands of lashings in a gauntlet. Even with all of these horrible things happening to Candide, I can't help but laugh at what's going on. To me, the story itself is just one giant hyperbole.
3) I'm compelled to say that no world is perfect. The world just is what it is. My thinking actually goes along pretty well with Pangloss’s philosophy. Everything has a reason and effect, so technically this would be the most perfect world you could get because nothing else is possible. But, I feel like this a cop out to your question, so I'll actually answer it:
Ideally, no. Candide’s world is not the perfect world. War exists; poverty exists; the Bulgars are a brutal race, and some of the characters in book or horrible people. A perfect world would not have these elements.