...When His Highness the Sultan sends a ship to Egypt, does he worry whether the mice on board are comfortable not not?" (92)
Pangloss conceded that he had suffered horribly, all his life, but
having once maintained that everything was going splendidly he would
continue to do so, while believing nothing of the kind. (91)
"I should like to know which is worse: to be raped a hundred times by
negro pirates, and have a buttock cut-off, and run the gauntlet of the
Bulgars, and be flogged and hanged in an auto-da-fe, and be dissected,
and have to row in a galley—in short, to undergo all the miseries we
have each of us suffered—or simply to sit here and do nothing?"—"That is
a hard question," said Candide. (90-91)
"I know absolutely nothing of the events you describe; I assume as a
matter of course that those who get involved in political affairs often
come to a bad end, and that they deserve to; but I never inquire about
what goes on in Constantinople; I am happy enough sending the fruits of
my garden to be sold there." (92)
The speech gave rise to new speculations, and Martin in particular
came to the conclusion that man was born to endure either the convulsion
of anxiety or the lethargy of boredom. Candide did not agree with this,
but he did not press the point. (91)
So we reach
the end of Candide's journey, with his "little society" (93) off in
their corner of Turkey . Everyone's back! Cunegonde, the old woman,
Pangloss, Cacombo, Martin, Paquette, Brother Girofleo, even the
Baron—until he is sold back to the Levantine captain to be put back in
the slave galleys (without telling Cunegonde, of course). So begins the
brave new order that will change the world.
Or not.
1.
So what is the solution that Voltaire presents here at the end, the
solution to the damned and damnable world he has depicted? Is it a
solution even? If not, what is it? What does it—solution or
not—achieve? Quote twice in your response.
2. Is the ending hopeful for you? If not exactly hopeful, then what?
3. Your reaction to the book? Does it still have validity two hundred fifty seven years since its original publication?
Finally. Contemporary satire at, I think, it's most pointed and painful. Key and Peele.
That's it. One of the great books down. Next great book: "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad. We'll be using the Norton Critical Edition. See you all on Tuesday.
1. In the very end, Pangloss tries to defend his philosophy for a final time. He claims this chain of events is the best one possible because it got them where they all are now (the garden). Candide agrees, but then says "but we must go and work in the garden". In this way, Voltaire doesn't offer a true solution to all the suffering in the world. The only way all the characters can escape from suffering is to detach from it completely and only focus on working in the garden. They cannot remain connected to the outside world or help others who are suffering. Their only route out of pain is complete isolation. When asked, "I should like to know which is the worst: to be ravished a hundred . . .or just to stay here with nothing to do?" Candide says, "That's a difficult question". Even their isolation doesn't bring them happiness (it only gives them relief from the constant suffering of the outside world).
ReplyDelete2. I don't think the end is very hopeful. It lets us believe that it is possible to find peace and to separate yourself from all the difficulties of the world. However, if you want to live a fuller life and experience the world, then the book seems to imply that you will have to deal with a lot of suffering in order to do so. The ending doesn't seem hopeful at all, it seems resigned. The characters all accept this world for what it is, even Pangloss sees that all events may not be for the best. Yet they still have to accept this world and live in it because it is their only option.
3. Yes, I think it still applies. Most of the issues in the book have never stopped being issues for human beings. It deals with violence, power struggles, religious powers, and belief systems. All of those problems or questions are so hard to comprehend that humans have been trying to understand them or improve them since they started. As I said in class, it seems like Voltaire is often questioning human nature, and why our nature makes us do the things we do. Human nature has not changed in all these years, and humans still have strange motivations for their actions. We still lack an understanding of how to end suffering and help others effectively. We still don't know what will ultimately make us happy.
1) I don't think Voltaire gives a solution at all. I think in the end, you have to play the hand you were dealt, and nothing else matters. Even talking, or philosophizing, about it is pointless. The dervish, a philosopher himself, rejects any conversation on the matter, saying its best to “keep your mouth shut.” When presented the idea of the existence of evil and good, he simply says “What does it matter?”. It Doesn't matter whether or not there is a better possible world, or if God is benevolent or not. So I guess there is a solution for our characters. It is to “set to work and stop proving things, for that is the only way to make life bearable.
ReplyDelete2) It is a bit hopeful. Our characters are seemingly safe from danger now and have something to work at everyday. “The gang is back together” and enjoy their simple life at least little. I think “conclusive,” is a better way to describe this ending. It doesn't give me hope for much else. They will most likely not do anything but work their farm until the day they die, but it's a more definitive and happy situation than roaming the globe constantly suffering. So “conclusive” is the way I'd describe this ending.
3) I enjoyed the book. It is something I will undoubtedly return to read again, this time paying attention to the smaller details so I can get the full effect of the book and uncover some of the things I missed. It'll also be good to read it without having to flip back and forth to the notes so I can actually enjoy it for what it is. It definitely does still hold true here in 2016. People are still greed over money, the question of why evil exist is still unanswered, and suffering still exists all over the world. Voltaire could've almost just as easily written this book today than before, even if he were to solely use recent events instead of historic ones.
The enemy Voltaire has presented in Candide is complacency. All of the horrible events throughout the books either happen or are not rectified because the characters are either resigned to believing that the world is the best, such as when Pangloss tells Candide at the end “All events form a chain in this, the best of all possible worlds” (94), or the world is the worst, such as when Martin concludes that “man was born to endure either the convulsions of agony or the lethargy of boredom” (91). They believe that their existence is governed by laws outside of their control, and in this train of thought, they let the world stay the same. The correct response to this complacency, Voltaire suggests, is hard work. Summed up by the benevolent Turk, “work keeps at bay the three great evils: boredom, vice, and necessity” (92). And for Candide's little society, it seems to work: they get back on their feet and achieve some normalcy.
ReplyDeleteIt is hopeful. Candide no longer concerns himself with trying to figure out the world, he now occupies himself with making sure his life is arranged properly. In other words, he now takes charge of his life.
I loved reading this book. It's well written, witty, and possesses a spirit of fantasy that goes above the mere whimsical. But what makes this book almost as relevant today as it was over two centuries ago is it's ability to tell a innately human story, one of despair, suffering, hope, and resolution. Some may say Candide is too much of a hollow and shallow character to serve as a protagonist to a great story, but his openness, tabla-rasa-esque personality allow us to put ourselves in his place.
1. I don’t think that Voltaire offers a solution, but he does offer a possible course of action. This course of action, suggested by the Turk at the very end of the book, involves isolating oneself from all the evils of the outside world and focusing on work and family. When implemented, this course of action seems to make Candide and his friends reasonably happy, but at the cost of any future adventures or learning. The question still remains as to whether it is worse “to undergo all the miseries we have each of us suffered – or to simply sit here and do nothing”(91). This is not an easy question. On one hand, the immense suffering that the characters have undergone is not by any means ideal or easy to overlook, but alongside this suffering came great joy and hope. If Candide had spent his entire life in Thunder-ten-tronckh, he certainly would have been reasonably happy, but he never would have seen El Dorado or met Martin or Cacambo. However, I can’t say that these brief and infrequent bouts of happiness interspersed amongst the suffering made up for Candide’s pain, because, as Martin remarks, there exists no scale to “weigh the misfortunes of men and calibrate their sufferings”(83).
ReplyDelete2. The ending does not strike me as particularly hopeful, but, given the events of the novel up until this point, it was happier than I anticipated. The characters end up essentially sacrificing the pursuit of knowledge and meaning for peaceful ignorance. As Martin says to Candide, “Let us set to work and stop proving things, for that is the only way to make life bearable”(93). Voltaire makes it very clear that wars are still being waged in the countries surrounding them. Kings are being deposed, entire armies slaughtered, etc. So it is not as though, by insulating themselves from the world, Candide and his buddies have remedied the injustices that plague the world. They’ve merely distanced themselves. But, we must not forget that everyone has the luxury of isolating themselves in such a way. Candide was only able to buy the farm due to his remaining money from El Dorado. This course of action would not be possible for most of the citizens of this world, who have no choice but to live more closely in society and fall victim to the evils of the world. So I suppose I would describe the ending as resigned, if that makes any sense. Voltaire is saying that, since we cannot do much to alter the course of events in the world, we might as well ignore them and not think too much about it, if we have the means to do so.
3. I enjoyed this book a lot, both for its comedic and philosophical value. It definitely got darker towards the end, but the faced-paced action kept it from being dry. I’d say that this book is still relevant, despite its age, because the overall point Voltaire is making is timeless. Over the course of this book, Voltaire criticizes many philosophies and worldviews – though none so overtly as Optimism – leading us to the conclusion that we can’t rely on logic to navigate our way through the world. Any broad philosophy of the world that tries to encompass everything will be in some way flawed, so we must accept that we go through life blind to our purpose or to our fate.
1. I think Voltaire does come to a conclusion or maybe even a solution to the great amount of suffering that seems inevitable in this world. Voltaire comes to this conclusion when he talks about the Turkish farmer and his family. “‘I have but twenty acres,’ replied the Turk. ‘I cultivate them with my children; our work keeps at bay the three great evils: boredom, vice, and necessity.” (92) I’m don’t think that these evils are all the evils that cause the suffering in this book but they make up quite a lot of it. Work does seem to keep away boredom and also necessity because making a living is usually not boring and work also allows people to meet their necessities. However, I don’t really understand how work keeps away vice. Maybe it’s because you can’t satisfy your vices if you are busy working but Voltaire doesn’t really make this clear. Voltaire does make it clear that this life of the Turk is the best way to live in this world, maybe even better than El Dorado because there might have been some boredom there. There is another part to Voltaire’s solution because the Turk also says, “‘I have never known the name of a single mufti or vizier. I know absolutely nothing of the events you describe; I assume as a matter of course that those who get involved in political affairs often come to a bad end’” (92). Voltaire is suggesting that to live a life that is at least relatively free of evils, you must not be aware of those that are powerful and not even think about the power structures that are in place and are governing your life. It is better to be ignorant about these things and not question the meaning of anything.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t think the ending is really that hopeful or hopeless, but more neutral and conclusive. Martin says, “‘Let us set to work and stop proving things...for that is the only way to make life bearable.’” (93) And life does become bearable as they start working and stop questioning. They each discover their talents and work together to make their small farm productive, which I think gives them some fulfillment. This could all be taken as hopeful, but at the same time, I think Voltaire is saying that humans will never be able to reach a level of happiness that is greater or deeper than this and that this farm is the best of all possible worlds.
3. I still think this book is relevant to the world today because obviously we have not changed that much and figured out how to be all be happy on our small but productive farms, and we are still violent and greedy. I think one of the main messages is to be aware of the awful things in the world that we sometimes take for granted because they are in accordance with “international law” or are only “natural.” Also Voltaire seems to recommend that we should try to be more aware of how our actions affect our own happiness and others. Happiness is still a hard thing to obtain in today’s world like it was in Voltaire’s so this is a good recommendation.
1. I don't think Voltaire gives a solution on how to fix their world but rather a solution to help them cope with their reality (which may or may not be the ultimate solution). Throughout the book, Pangloss explains everything that happens through his optimistic view of the world. No matter what happens he, like most people, doesn't actually do anything about it. He doesn't even rethink his philosophy saying, “I hold firmly to my original views, I am philosopher after all: it would not do for me to recant” (88). His attitude towards life is mimicked in others and is what impedes the world from getting better. Everyone insists on talking about why the world is the way it is, but no one wants to alter their own philosophy even when they see it's faults. To counter this Voltaire suggests that they “…set to work and stop proving things, for that is the only way to make life bearable” (93). This of course doesn't change anyone's situation, but it does propose a more active way of going through life. Instead of having conversations that lead to nothing, they can make the best of what they're given.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think the ending is really hopeful, but there is a sense of peace and acceptance. The main characters are not in constant danger anymore and they now have made peace with the harsh realities of the world. With their new found peace, they are able to accept the world as it is and perhaps find ways to deal with it if they can't change it.
3. I enjoyed Candide and it is very much relevant today because it's commentary on human nature still holds up. People still allow their greed and their differences to tear them apart. And even today, many people only talk about what's wrong with the world and never act on what they say. Instead, they wait for someone or something to fix the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The ending to the book is definitely not a solution to fixing the world. Throughout the book, the enemy seems to be complacency; that's what drives Pangloss and Candide to think that everything is for the best even when it clearly isn't. Complacency on the part of people is what lets the evils of the world exist; the commoners don't revolt against the cruel armies that commit mass atrocities, they don't overthrow capitalist systems that benefit the wealthy, and nobody questions religion. Instead, in their complacency characters have a blind hope that the world will change. Evil flourishes and devastates humanity. But on the other hand when Candide tries to fight the system with his newfound wealth after El Dorado, it just causes him even more misery. And if the commoners had tried to revolt against the raiding armies, it would have resulted in even more bloodshed. Thus, to an extent the world requires complacency for its sanity.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, Voltaire offers a way for his characters to shut out the evils of the world. When Candide is talking to the Turk, he says his "work [...] keeps at bay the three great evils of life: boredom, vice and necessity" (92) By solely focusing on their work and not on the struggle for power around them they can ignore their suffering. However, by no means is this a solution because atrocities still continue whether people choose to acknowledge them or not. In this case, what is right, fighting for change is different from what is comfortable, focusing on oneself. As Candide is talking to Martin, he "does not agree" with Martin's statement that "man was born to endure the convulsion of anxiety or the lethargy of boredom" (91). If you believe in free will like Candide, there is always a possibility that the world could change for the better, suggesting that we should act and not just try to shut the world out.
2. The ending was more neutral to me. In Candide there was no happiness without unhappiness; as soon as something incredible happened to a character something equally awful came along to balance it out, but also when characters were at their absolute worst something great would come along to help them back up. The two can not exist without each other, and this makes sense logically; there is no short without tall, no light without dark. We perceive happiness in contrast to unhappiness. It was impossible that there would be a happy ending because of how unhappiness would undoubtedly follow. Thus, a neutral ending was the best we could hope for. At least we know that without happiness, the characters also won't experience unhappiness. So while they may not be happy, they are secure.
3. I do think it has validity. What Voltaire says about human complacency and human nature is very much applicable to today's world; just look at the societal evils we allow to exist today. Global warming, corporate greed, racism. Sure we pretend to fight against them with the occasional retweet, but at the end of the day we care way more about that new cat meme than child laborers in Bangladesh. We have to. We'd go insane otherwise. Furthermore, I believe we all have an innate belief that we could be on top of the system one day so we allow it to continue to exist. We are complacent because we are power hungry ourselves; so power hungry that certain members of society have concentrated wealth and influence to such a degree it is almost impossible to act out against them, even in democratic elections.
1. I don’t think that Voltaire presents a solution because life doesn’t have a solution. In a way, this book is a genuine depiction of reality even though it is a hyperbolic satire filled with absurdities. Candide finishes the book: “we must cultivate our garden.” (94). Garden—growth—he is building something, bringing life to the earth. Life goes on, even if you have been hanged and sliced open; despite all the tragedies that occur in this book, Candide continues on his quest. It seems evident that the answer lies in forging on through life, not in philosophizing: “‘Let us set to work and stop proving things,’ said Martin, ‘for that is the only way to make life bearable.’” (93). The three great evils are “boredom, vice, and necessity” (92); the answer is avoiding these, or at least learning to cope with them. Voltaire leaves the reader with many questions, no clear answer as to what the solution is, and in this way allows for possibilities, forces the reader to continue the questioning that Candide begins.
ReplyDelete2. Hope has so many layers in this book. Blind hope, the kind that Pangloss has, leads to blind optimism, which Voltaire does not agree with. Hope that leads to action, the kind that Candide has, is good hope—it keeps him going, keeps him searching for Cunégonde. In the end, Candide gets what he wanted: a quiet life with Cunégonde. But she is ugly and he does not love her anymore (I have many issues with this but will not go into them now). His reality falls short of his hopes. He does not become the man he dreamed of becoming. So hopeful? Maybe. As hopeful as life, with all of its hardship, can be.
3. I did not enjoy reading this book all that much, but now that I have finished it I can reflect back and see its value. It is a philosophical exploration, and I appreciate that now. I think that its questions are still relevant and will continue to be so until the end of humanity. It grapples with the big questions: the meaning of life, happiness, love—these questions are timeless.
1. I feel like the solution Voltaire presents lies in Candide’s interpretation of the old man’s words: “we must cultivate our garden” (93), which “keeps at bay the three great evils: boredom, necessity, and vice” (92). Perhaps this mindset is not a definite solution, but I think it comes closer than any other philosophies or actions the characters displayed. “Cultivating a garden” implies that the characters are taking charge of their own lives, instead of idly observing (or complaining about) what happens to them. It seemed that previously, the characters thought that simply blithely accepting what is handed to you is the only possible reaction to life’s occurrences. At the conclusion of the book, I feel like the characters are handling life’s events differently, by changing the mindset with which they evaluate these events. I think this solution provides some sort of happiness for the characters. When they discovered that what they thought they wanted (a life without any of the previous grievances they had all faced), it turned out to be numbingly boring. But Candide’s conversation with the old man enabled the characters to turn their views around, and I think achieve some sort of contentedness with their lives (I’m not positive any of these characters can ever be truly happy because it seems they always manage to find fault with something in their lives). I also think I’m not sure I can say for certain the characters achieved their happiness because I can’t really pinpoint what the characters’ goals were to begin with.
ReplyDelete2. The ending wasn’t really hopeful for me. Up until the last page or so, I found myself becoming more and more annoyed with the characters. I felt like they wanted to be miserable just so they could have something to complain about, as if nothing could ever happen (even all of their sorrows ending) to make them happy. The shift in the characters’ thinking at the end of the novel did not seem very profound or monumental, it did not seem like a gigantic change; it makes sense that the characters would eventually come to this conclusion – what else would have happened? This contributed to it not seeming hopeful. I think I often associate hope with the possibility of happiness, not with a blatantly happy ending. I think it is possible that the characters will resort to their previous selves, meaning they will not appreciate what they currently have and will continue to consider themselves as miserable. And it is not a given that they will maintain the philosophy of “cultivating their own garden”. But even if they do change the way they think, it does not feel hopeful to me because I feel like this is what they should have been doing all along. I also usually associate hope with characters that I like, because I want something good to happen to these characters, even if it is not guaranteed. Maybe I don’t feel hope because I don’t feel particularly attached to any of these characters (or even like them all that much) so I don’t really care about whatever happens to them.
ReplyDelete3. I didn’t love the book. When I read the first assignment, I liked the writing style, I found it funny and engaging. And then as we continued reading, I felt like all of the characters were echoing each other. After reading Candide’s story, the old woman’s story, and Cunegonde’s story, I almost felt like I had read all there was to read, even though I still had the majority of the book to read. I have mixed feelings about the depictions of terrors in the book. I think making fun of everything horrible that different people go through can be insensitive, but I see how it could objectively be funny due to its outrageousness. And I think it’s interesting that Voltaire eventually portrayed all of the philosophizing as boring, as trite. Maybe that is a commentary on society (that is still relevant today) – how debating Optimism and other philosophies can first appear interesting but is really just pointless because agreements are not always reached. If we don’t reach an agreement but have learned all there is to learn from the argument, what’s the point in continuing it? I feel like the novel as a whole does still have validity even now because I think a lot of the most poignant messages are still heard. Even if the horrors are different now, they still occur and still have some meaning. And the book’s reflections on searches for the best possible world and attempts to avoid being subject to vices/human error are things that many people deal with in different ways.
Voltaire’s solution is mostly to remove yourself from all the chaos, and mind your own business. It isn’t glamorous, or riveting, and it doesn’t so much solve any of the horrible things that have been happening so much as it saves the individual from participation, and also stops them from messing with anyone else. If you isolate everyone, and occupy them with work and food, then there is no one to harm them and no one to harm, “I know nothing of the events you describe; I assume as a matter of course that those who get involved in political affairs often come to a bad end, and that they deserve to; but I never inquire about that goes on in Constantinople; I am happy enough sending the fruits of my garden to be sold there.” The man says he believes whatever tragedies befall politicians are just what’s coming to them, but he isn’t the one DOING anything to them. Likewise, he never goes digging, keeping himself and his family safely uninvolved. I think it’s important to note here that he says, “happy enough,” echoing the King of Eldorado’s “reasonably happy” argument. If you’re reasonably happy; happy enough; as happy as can be expected, then you are in a good place and shouldn’t leave. I have an initially bad reaction to the idea of staying still and not aspiring to something greater; modern American society heavily values progress and personal achievement, so the idea of settling down to farm oranges seems pretty anticlimactic, but (aside from Eldorado) it’s the best this world has to offer. “'I have but twenty acres,’ replied the Turk, ‘I cultivate them with my children; our work keeps at bay the three great evils: boredom, vice, and necessity.” The man and his family are comfortable, kept safe from the horrors of the world and the terror of… boredom. Apparently, boredom is comparable to the active suffering of everything else, “‘I should like to know which is worse: […] to undergo all the miseries we each of us suffered - or simply to sit here and do nothing?’ - ‘That is a hard question,’ said Candide.” So, Voltaire not only establishes that boredom is equally as awful as torture, but provides us a solution to both. Listing as many fruits as he does actually reinforces the inference that Voltaire is telling us that this situation is ideal - meeting the farmer and having him say “all we’ve eaten for the past three years is yams” wouldn’t have been as attractive as the incredible list of sorbets, fruits, pistachios, and coffee that he gave. Voltaire ends his book supplying readers with the sort of quiet, fulfilled life that modern American novels use as the boring-status-quo starting point. It is a personal solution that achieves fulfillment of the individual rather than healing the society (as such, it is much more attainable), but it could also be a solution in general if everyone contented themselves this way.
ReplyDelete2. It is hopeful in a way, but maybe it’s not immediately obvious. Candide and his friends and family are settled into a comfortable norm instead of the alternating agony and ecstasy (and then much, much more agony) as in the rest of the play. This consistency is depicted as preferable especially once we hear the gardening Turk’s story - his life is not glamorous, but everyone with even a small title or fortune ends up murdered or worse. The busy-bodied gardener is presented as the ideal. Were everyone to pursue this quiet sort of personal fulfillment, no one would be running around killing people, and the world would be a much better place - I think that idea is a decently hopeful ending. The version of hope that I am used to in today’s stories tend to be about “winning the fight", but this book is nothing BUT fighting, and we have seen how badly that turns out, so maybe a passive approach really is preferable.
ReplyDelete3. I liked it because it presents a solution to the negative aspects of the world that I hadn’t thought of - passivity. I do not agree, but I enjoy having a new way to consider the problem. I definitely think it’s still relevant today. Since tragedies still occur, we haven’t found a solution yet. Poverty and murder and rape sadly haven’t gone away - neither have slavery, theft, conquest, and any number of other awful things. Voltaire provides his solution: isolated self-fulfillment. I struggle to really consider societal passivity as a solution to the world’s problems because I ALREADY have a comfortable life, so inaction would fail to improve my life, or the lives of anyone else. In order to be a solution to anything I would have to be involved and take some sort of action. That doesn’t detract from the fact that the book itself has modern application, I just don’t agree with the solution.
1. Candide's solution at the end is only good for the troubles inside him. His life can still be ruined again by forces outside his control. His solution is to cultivate a garden, make things grow, and stop worrying about why anything is. All his and Pangloss's and Martin's philosophizing has gotten them nowhere. This gives him something to do to avoid having to think about a reason to do it. It's ironic that he ultimately settles for this contented, rather average life, in an area still rather violent and unstable, when he was given the option to settle as a reasonably happy person in Eldorado earlier. He could lose everything in a day if he's raided by the passing armies that seem so common, but he just continues on. He's just as complicit as Pangloss's optimism requires, but he doesn't justify it as Pangloss does. Candide realizes that as much as he bothers himself with whether his is the best of all possible worlds it doesn't change what world he lives in.
ReplyDelete2. It's just kind of resigned. It's not bleak, but it's not hopeful. He's lost his riches and the associated grandeur and adventures. At the same time, his life is less painful. He's settled down for a pretty constantly mediocre life. There aren't any real highs other than a particularly delicious pastry made by Cunégonde or something like that, but he doesn't face 2,000 lashings for taking a walk. It's sort of a "and they lived ever after without ever being seriously unhappy" ending. In comparison to the horrors in other parts of the book, that sounds pretty good.
3. I liked it. This still holds a message that is important for people to hear. Similar problems exist today, even if they come in different forms. People still put too much weight on money, for example. The cult of the monarchy that Voltaire critiques could easily be compared to the cult of celebrity in modern America. The specific issues in 18th century society addressed in the book may be for the most part gone, but it still has relevance. It is, after all, about more than specific issues. Those issues demonstrate deeper problems Voltaire saw in human nature, and Martin comments on how human nature will change no more than a hawk will stop killing pigeons. As long as hawks kill pigeons, Candide will have relevance to the world, even if you need to read the notes to understand some of the jokes.
1. I would say that the solution here is that the study of life, philosophy if you will, and conversation over the meaning of life do not help one to lead a fulfilling or happy life; it is action and work rather than argument and reflection that “make life bearable” (93). That being said, this is a satire, so perhaps that is merely what Voltaire wants us to think about and then decide to the contrary. One place though where I do believe I know what he is saying is at the very end when Pangloss states that “man was placed in the garden of Eden…so that he might work” (93) because that is just so clearly wrong. Man was expelled from the garden and that is when work became necessary for survival. Candide does not exist in “the best of all possible worlds” but he learns how to accept that and work with what he’s given. I believe that to be the solution Voltaire presents to us in the end: find a way to work with what you’re given and let that be enough for you.
ReplyDelete2. I wouldn’t say this is a very hopeful end, but that has more to do with Cunegonde and Candide than it does with, perhaps, the true conclusion. I am an endless romantic, and while I can understand the points Voltaire addresses towards finding peace in this horrible world, I have a hard time agreeing that it is solely through work and not through other human beings. True, each person in Candide’s household has their purpose and they couldn’t live without each particular skill, but that sort of quantifiable value is not what I’m referring to; human connection and an emotional reliance on others is lacking here. Perhaps it is that reliance that Voltaire is arguing makes life harder to live as it could lead to disappointment, the hardest pain of all.
3. Yes, I do think this satire is relevant nowadays in certain ways, but I believe its argument was probably a lot more potent back when it was written if for no other reason than how relevant all its references would have been back then. I hated having to look in the back of the book and then pull up google when the book fails me. It pulls me away from the story in a way that I don’t think was intended. Although it’s true that the questions it poses and the message it sends to us about how to live and find happiness are valid points to be made in our current generation, I think a lot of the actual story is lost to these now obscure allusions to events and people I have no understanding of. In that sense, I think this story fails.
1. I think there was no solution presented in the text. We see Candide in the end who is finally reconnected with the love of his life, only to realize that he doesn't want to marry her because she's become ugly. The text says, "Candide had no desire to marry Cunégonde," (89) and at this point I was seriously questioning the point of the story. Because I was reflecting on the entire reason Candide even went on the trip and that was to find Cunégonde, and now that he sees that she's not as attractive he doesn't want anything to do with her? It even talks about how his initial reaction to seeing her was "recoil[ing] three paces, then advanc[ing] out of sheer good manners." (89)Then we see how Candide no longer has any money to really support the lives of himself and Cunégonde. Everyone seems to hate their lives on the farm and nobody seems happy at all. The only person who seems content in the slightest is Martin who'd already adopted this mindset that happiness was never even possible from the start. This way he's sort of deflected the his misfortunes because in a way he was already prepared for them.
ReplyDelete2. To me the ending was not hopeful. It seemed like nobody was okay and that they were actually really displeased with their lives. I didn't seem like any lessons were learned and everyone still had the ideals they had started with in the beginning of the book. The only one who really changed to me was Candide and to me he changed for the worst. I was more inclined to think of Candide as somewhat of a good person but after seeing how shallow he acted towards Cunégonde, I questioned why he even went on the trip and saw all those misfortunes if nothing changed within him.
3. I think the book was interesting. It really provoked me, which I thought was the intention of the text. I guess I liked it because I like when books make me feel certain ways. It definitely left me thinking out it and what it was trying to draw attention to.