Shades Of Gray

Chapter 19 hosts the election of what would become the protagonist’s new companion and replacement of Cacambo after his departure. A scholar by the name of Martin is chosen and rapidly becomes a character of great importance in the novel, foreshadowing in his pessimist mentality the strongest message the book was to engrave on me. The first conversation the protagonist had with the scholar, on chapter 20, revealed that Martin believed the world to be a creation on the hands of evil and denied any encounter with “good.” Candide, much amused by the interpretation, proceeds to question his views and, as expected, mentions how his dead mentor, Pangloss, believed in everything happening for the best. Thus far, we start making some interesting connections with past events which the book relies on to get the message across. The first connection I established is the realization that Pangloss’ mentality and that of Martin present a dichotomy. Voltaire poses them both as erudite characters in the novel, making both of their mentalities strong and convincing by providing concrete evidence supporting them in different situations. By posing such a contradiction with no definite bias, the text may be trying to show us how everything is subject of personal interpretation, and that such subjectivity may always be right as paired up with the specific point of view taken.
Through the novel, it has been quite clear how Pangloss supported his optimist mentality in an almost too stubborn position. The previous reflects the difficulty incorporated in changing character and beliefs, idea that would be supported by Martin, his counterpart. Enveloped in conversation, Candide questions Martin by asking him if he thinks humans have always been as evil and corrupt. In the questioning Candide mentions the worst flaws of humanity as to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, to which Martin cunningly answers: “Do you think that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they found them (96)?” The protagonist admits that he does think it is logical, to which martin adds: “if hawks have always had the same character, why would you suppose that men have changed theirs (96)?” By making this point, and reaffirming that humans have always been creatures of evil, Martin has given proof to human stubbornness and the impossibility of changing or molding a character and beliefs, or human nature.
As may be expected, which implies the unexpected in a way, it all starts to fit together in the final chapters, more precisely, in the final sentences. Candide’s final words read as goes: “that’s true enough, but we must go and work in the garden (144).” In the literal context we may connect this to the garden work previously mentioned in the chapter, but figuratively, the garden may be interpreted as all that which provides sustention for everything we dream and wish for: our lives. But then how does this all fit together? You see, no great project is accomplished by a single task: no matter how many plumbers you have, you will never produce the building. We all form part of a universal garden in which some of us are plumbers and others may be decorators, floor experts, electricians, engineers and all those roles which sum up to that final end product of a building. Referring back to the text, both Pangloss and Martin explain how individuals are born as such and molded into certain character which is then impossible to change, sort of how each specific individual covers a specific job in the garden, all of which are different but necessary for an integral garden. In the end it wasn’t Pangloss’ optimism that won the battle, nor was it Martin’s realist negativism that provided for a meaningful life. It is not you or I that will serve as model for everybody, but it is everybody that serves as a model for himself in his molding of a character.

A Global Perspective

Chapters 17 and 18 of Candide mention the protagonist’s miraculous arrival to the mystical city of “El Dorado,” where streets where paved in gold and the natives acted as living in an economic utopia. When ready to take leave after being shown around, fed, and invited onto the king’s quarters for no price at all, he is let free to leave and even paid for the development of a technique to help him get out of the impenetrable city. As if all the services rendered weren’t enough, the king offers anything but guides as the companions get ready to leave towards Europe, to which Candide answers that he would only ask for sheep saddled with food and mud of the country, which in effect is precious gold for the previous character. To this petition, the king answers: “I don’t understand your European taste for our yellow mud, but take all you want and much good may it do to you (83).” Gold was insignificant and priceless to the natives who walked around in it, but to Europeans it was the ultimate material for which wars were fought and people killed. This has happened through history as a result of cultural differences, especially when the globe wasn’t so tightly connected and little cultural diffusion had happened between the old and new world. This happened when Europeans first arrived to the Americas and changed mirrors and object of the sort, which for the natives where impossible anyway else, for Indian diamonds and precious stones, which were not a big deal to the Indians for they had so many.

Even today, to a lesser extent, geographical positioning and cultural influences imposes a mental “price” on certain products giving them more or less value depending on the amount of such available and how easy the product is to obtain. As to pose a simple example, let’s take into account a friend’s lucrative business. This anonymous friend brings candy and edible products from the United States and sells them in Colombia at three times the price he bought them, and people keep on buying his stock. This can only be explained by the difference in access to the mentioned product: a citizen of New York wouldn’t pay any impressive price on the merchandise for it is so common and easy to acquire, on the other hand, a Colombian gladly pays the high price for the product is so scarce and unique in comparison to national industry.

As I read across an article in the Real Estate section of the New York Times, a subject I am fond of, I decided to share it with you as to enhance your interpretation not only of Candide, but of basic economic and even human psychology as well. The article by Shelley Emling titled Europeans Again Interested In Florida Homes, mentions how foreign buyers have once again showed interest in the State’s real estate sales after a prolonged period of small sales. It points out how Florida homes are “on sale” for half the prices they represented around 2003-2004. Sales have greatly declined as a result of the economic crisis we are all very much aware of, and would have proved much worse without foreign awareness and investment. In her article, Shelley Emling mentions how “In 2008, foreign buyers were responsible for about one-third of new and existing home sales in Florida, according to the National Association of Realtors 2009 profile of international home buying. In 2005, overseas purchasers accounted for about 15 percent of the houses sold in the state.”

After I have kept you wondering on the intention and purpose of the above article I will proceed to demonstrate its connection to Candide. Not only will it make you more aware and interesting people to know about economic situations, but it helps understand how people put prices on certain products. Going back to the novel, Europeans put a great price on gold and emeralds as a result of a scarce supply and a exceedingly high demand, but the natives of the golden city appointed it no price at all and even walked in it naturally because it was so abundant that no one found it a luxury but rather a given. The same thing happens with Florida’s real estate and any other product on the global market to a lesser extent: price is put on it according to supply and demand. When homes were at sale at absurd amounts and little or no buyers emerged to meet the supply, the prices of the houses fell 50% which is an absurd amount of money when applied to a great investment as buying a house. I do not mean to make economy sound so basic for it is in fact extremely complex, but it all goes back to the simple principle of: it only costs as much as I want it, and the easier it is to get, the weakest my want for the product.

Taking it back a bit further, we can connect it to human interpretation, which ironically enough, we are carrying out right here. We interpret everything according to our culture and context, which is in return affected by what we have, want, and need. If the economy puts a certain price on a dollar then that’s what its worth and that how badly people want it in general. If society put emotional weight on certain theme it is because they are unused to it and have a hard time getting to understand it.

I hope I have not exceeded myself in making this point for I consider it rather interesting and enriching to our experience as member of an economic and materialist society. Voltaire was also a member of a similar society, and that why we have the ability to interpret and identify ourselves with his messages, but remember: his conditions where different as he wrote it, so are his ideas and interpretations of such different from us.

Europeans Again Interested in Florida Homes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/greathomesanddestinations/09iht-refla.html?pagewanted=2&ref=realestate

Dr. Paul LeClerc

After reading through chapters 15 and 16 of Candide, I decided to find reference on other material. By that time I had clearly painted a picture of the message in my mind and owned my own interpretation of it, but I was curious to compare it to a different reader’s understanding. I found a short feedback on the book from a source previously unknown to me: Dr. Paul LeClerc.

As he narrated his experience and opinion on the novel I realized that he had a very similar interpretation as mine, but I also found that the context in which he read it had some close connections to my current situation as a reader. Dr. LeClerc said that he was first introduced to the novel when he was eighteen, which is barely 2 years ahead of my age when introduced to the text. Age is a great factor when considering why and how the individual comes to such interpretation, and it is said that the first impression is never forgotten. We had similar interpretations of the text to a point, but he highlights themes which although I identify in the novel, don’t really regard as crucial individually. He mentions the following themes dealt with: “war, rape, mayhem, theft, sexual trafficking, anti-Semitism is there although Voltaire is not conscious of seeing that as an evil (Dr. LeClerc).” He previously told us that he was required to ask the bishop for permission in order to read those books, which made the act of reading them almost a privilege and demonstrated the conservatism of the context. In such a conservative environment, the themes he previously mentioned are not encountered as often, and therefore produce a more profound effect when found, which reflects the fact that he highlights them in his interpretation on the book. When concluding his apparition, Dr. Paul LeClerc mentions the following: “I think that what he though and does indeed provide through this story, in the way it evolves and especially in the ending of the story, is that we can and should deliberately structure our lives in a way that is on the one hand enlightened, but more importantly, becomes a bulwark, a defense against evil that one person perpetrates against another (Dr. Paul LeClerc).” I agree with the point he makes about structuring our lives as to become more resistant individuals against evil that happens by developing an impenetrable barrier of emotion as the point the book tries to make, even though I disagree with the meaning of the book itself in that sense.

It is always great to find in others the opportunity to revaluate our own interpretations as to fix or complement our understanding. The opportunity Dr. Paul LeClerc gave me to identify my interpretation with his has given me a greater sense of Voltaire’s intentions. Go ahead and give him a chance dear reader, for he might suggest interesting ideas to you to, and if it happens that my supposition is erroneous, I assure you that if not in him in someone you will always find compliment to your thinking.

I strongly recommend that you watch the video by selecting the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwMlWyqi0ms

Self- Appointed Misery

In chapters 12 and 13 Voltaire depicts the ultimate characteristic of the human mind: self appointed misery. Members of the human species tend to be unhappy especially with them personally as compared to others. Voltaire makes the point through the characters of his story, most precisely, by this comment made by the old lady: “Just to amuse yourself, persuade each passenger to tell you his story, and if you find even one who has not often cursed his life and told himself that he is the most miserable man alive, you can throw me into the sea headfirst (p.57).” This assumption in its daring tone has a number of components to it that construct upon self appointed misery. The first thing we must take into account is the fact that the author of this assumption was completely sure about her words and even bet her life to the previous, indicating that there is just no way this doesn’t happen, for it has become a rule. Taking into account that it is not one, two or a few, but every human that curses himself at some point, we proceed to apply this to a context. Quite obviously, not everyone can be entitled as the most miserable man alive, for it would literally contradict the rule. By mathematic concepts there is only one such individual and all of us are better off than him, but we fail to think on this perspective. We are all too busy worrying about our own misery to depict any trouble in other people which comes back to the absurdity of the behavior. First and most important, a small flaw or trouble doesn’t make us the most miserable individuals, so we must stop acting as such and start focusing on the pros of our character. On the other hand, everyone is too busy in midst of their own so called misery to figure out yours, so even if you happen to have some trouble, it isn’t of great importance for no one but you will truly understand and uncover its components. This specific time, and in the midst of its extreme in term of absurdity, I must strongly agree with the point the author is trying to make. After all we are the leading species, and the simple fact that you come across and understand this message makes you better off than millions of people.

A Quick Glance

As I encountered the life stories of both Cunégonde and the old woman, a quite absurd situation once you connect it to the context, I made sense of the intentions. If you recall chapters eight through eleven, you will remember how Cunégonde narrated the story of her misfortunes and completely convinced took the role of ultimate martyr, to be contradicted by the old woman and her story as a sufferer. Cunégonde relates her absurd story as such: “Unless you have been ravished by two Bulgars, had two stabs in your belly, and two of your country houses demolished; unless you have had two mothers and two fathers butchered before your eyes and beheld two of your lovers flogged at an auto-da-fé, I don’t see how you can rival me, especially as I am a baron’s daughter with seventy-two quarterings in my coat of arms, and yet have served as a kitchen maid (p.48-49).” Up to the point it seems completely reasonable that the baron’s daughter challenge the old lady to come up with something better as an impossible deed, for nothing could be worse. The story just mentioned itself was quite absurd as it sounds, but it is a minimum level of absurdity considering the book, which soon comes up with the old lady’s story, absurd as this: “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina. Until the age of fourteen I was brought up in a palace whose very stables were grander than all the mansions of your German barons..I daily increased in beauty… I was betrothed to a sovereign prince of Massa-Carrara assuredly the very pattern of al princes. He was my equal in beauty (p.49-50).” Up to that point it all went pretty well, apart from the absurd thought that this was the story of a servant, until the story meets an absurd downfall. She tells them how a lady who had been the Prince’s mistress poisons him to death, how in her grief she set sail in their magnificent yacht to an estate they owned near Gaeta only to be attacked by a Moorish pirate, how her whole family was torn to pieces in an African civil war, how she was presented as slave, and how she escaped from a pile of corpses. As absurd as it seems, her story in itself was quite more tragic and the amount lost greatly exceeded the first story, that without considering the irony of being the servant of Cunégonde.
If you found the entire previous situation quite unbelievable and impossible, don’t worry, so did I at first glance. Then I ran the stories through my mind a second time to conclude that their details were not important to the message. The third time I thought about it, it hit me that absurdity was exactly what was being emphasized by Voltaire. It is only to be expected that in the midst of a satirical novel the examples used turn up absurd, but that doesn’t discredit the message. In a realistic interpretation, Cunégonde thought of herself in a worse position than someone else giving for granted that the old lady hadn’t met so much misfortune in her life. Being so quick to judge and assume, she was proven wrong in the spot, which the author used to prove his point. The message being sent is the warning against quick and ignorant judgments. As I mentioned in previous blogs: we must understand all the details and “variables” that lead to the end product being encountered. It is said that those who are so quick to judge will be quickly judged themselves. Give yourself a fighting chance.

The True Test

Chapters 6 and 7 of Voltaire’s Candide present the reader with crucial controversies in the development of the protagonist. Candide strongly supports his mentor’s ideas of cause and effect and that this world is the best possible, but this mentality has met a devastating test. In chapter six, Dr. Pangloss, his mentor, meets his death in effect of a recent earthquake. The chapter starts with “The University of Coimbra had pronounced that the sight of a few people being burned alive was an infallible prescription for preventing earthquakes,” and soon selects both teacher and student as a couple of these martyrs. Soon enough, Dr. Pangloss is hanged, which shakes the pillars of his own theory as seen by Candide. The student then wonders: “If this be the best of all possible worlds… what can the rest be like? (37).” This tough immediately warns the reader of an emotional change in the character. He no longer believes unhesitant in the best possible outcome being always what happened.

Many times in our lives we tend to go though the same story as the text is showing us: or at least a similar in consequence. It is very easy for us to make up philosophy based on other peoples’ loss and then announce ourselves as serious believers in such ideas. As Candide finds out, many times we must live it ourselves: we must undergo the situation which we pretend to judge in order to understand the components of the event in depth. That may be what Voltaire may be trying to say to us in the text: don’t teach others how to affront harsh situations when you haven’t got personal experience on them. But beyond the moral generalization, the text also warns us against our own mentalities and beliefs. It may be an invitation to reexamine everything we have learned and all that which we argue true even when we have no proof to convince ourselves other than external experiences. Don’t wait for reality to kick in and shock the pillars of your mentality, get one step ahead and reevaluate you own bases.