Irony

Whitman, as an American, has a point of view of war. In his time period there was a lot of conflicts going on and Whitman was, as the rest of the Americans, involved in it. His works have this effect reflected.

There is this part from poem 18 that I really liked:

“ Vivas to those who have fail’d!
And to those whose war-vessels sank in the sea!
And to those themselves who sank in the sea!
And to all generals that lost engagements! and all overcome heroes!
And the numberless unknown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known. ”

First, I notice that the four ending lines start with “And”, as I said in my previous blog, this makes an emphasis to what he is saying. But as if the repetition wasn’t enough, Whitman adds an exclamation mark at the end of the four starting lines. It is a strong verse, a lot of feeling. He is making a celebration to war, almost as if critizing it. Celebrating the deaths of so many, like the politicians and generals do. The last line I love. “numberless unknown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known.” He uses two well chosen adjectives, numberless and unknown, and then three adjectives that are quite the opposite, equal (as an specific number) greatest and known. The line is sad. The entire verse is sad. But he celebrates it, ironically.

I Failed

Walt Whitman, I researched, is American, and “the father of free verse”. His style is unique, bla, bla, bla. I read indeed the poems from his book Leaves of Grass (by the way, grass doesn’t have leaves). I wanted to get the style all by myself, without the help from Mr. Tangen. Usually I miss all the stylistic things and the real meaning behind the word choice, or sentence structure, I don’t catch the greatness of the author, writer, poet, artists, painter, etc. I just miss it, no matter how hard I read it, or how focused I am. But the times I do get it, it feels good. In Simple Soul by Gustave Flaubert, I was getting the hang of it, I had started to feel Flaubert and his sentences and description, and just when I feel I pro, I have to read somebody else. But that’s good. I have to practice comparing styles (I guess). So I compared Whitman with Flaubert.

Whitman writes in first person, he is describing what he sees, what he feels, “Or I guess the grass is itself a child, the produced babe of the vegetation.” (line 98). Flaubert writes in third person, and he describes the third person’s feeling, actions, emotions, “She found it hard, however, to think of the latter as a person, for was it not a bird, a flame, and sometimes only a breath?”

Flaubert seldom repeats a word, he is even famous because of that. Whitman, on the other hand, uses repetition as a style, he starts a series of lines in his verses with the same first, second and third word, for example,
“It may be you transpire from the breasts of young men;
It may be if I had known them I would have loved them;
It may be you are from old people, and from women, and from offspring taken soon out of their mothers’ laps;” (lines 104-107)

I also noted that he compares everything with nature, plants specially. He is also very, not the pejorative self centered, but the selfcenterness that is good. I accept it, I feel I failed to get Whitman, I need the class discussions.

And Again

We learned that the parrot is of great importance to Felicite. Flaubert gives importance to Loulou the way he writes about him. Almost half of Simple Soul is about the parrot, even the last sentence of the story is about the parrot. When Felicite is getting sick, deaf, blind and weak, Flaubert writes, “Only one noise penetrated her ears; the parrot’s voice.” The second part of the sentence is independent, separated by the semi colon, clearly giving much more emphasis to the parrot himself, as if the reader is to read it alone, pausing before. Noise rhymes with voice, a pretty sentence, it's nicely put together, because of its importance, not to mention that it is the last sentence of a paragraph.

Loulou the parrot’s death, is painful for Felicite, Flaubert makes the significance, giving two sentences, one after the other, a single paragraph each,

“She wept so sorely that her mistress said: ‘Why don’t you have him stuffed?’

She asked the advice of the chemist, who had always been kind to the bird.”

If, the two sentences are together and joined to the previous paragraph, it would not be as meaningful. For the second sentence, a person (the chemist) would be expected to “always been kind to” Felicite, and not the bird, but because the bird is more important than Felicite (going back to the meaningless life that she had) he has “always been kind to the bird”, and not Felicite. In the first sentence, it is surprising that the mistress cared about Felicite, through out the story, she hasn’t given a damn about her, now she does, because of the bird, again.

I like Flaubert, I’m getting every time better at understanding his style, I’m probably not an expert; But I’m not lost, which is good.

(Noticed my style?)

Tasty Writing

Free indirect style is the way you make a character as yourself and writing about it while narrating the story. Flaubert does that. There is a bit of irony and hyperbole in the story, obviously adding more to the tastiness of it. I get to see Felicite’s soul and thoughts without noticing that it is her feelings and thoughts that are being described. For example, “She hung her head. He then asked her whether she had ever thought of marrying. She replied, smilingly, that it was wrong for him to make fun of her.” (Simple Soul) So far there has been almost no quotation for Felicite, not when she is talking or thinking something. Felicite “hung her head” is describing a feeling, an action hat comes with a feeling without saying the specific emotion. Or for example, “He always came at dinner-time and brought an ugly poodle with him, whose paws soiled their furniture.” The adjective “ugly” for the dog is only because he made the furniture dirty, and Felicite doesn’t like that. This sentence could be written like this, “He always came a dinner-time and brought the ugly poodle that Felicite hated because he soiled their furniture.” But there is no need for the “Felicite hated because”, it is induced with the negative adjective and the second part of the sentence.

There is this paragraph which stood out to me, goes like this:

“When Virginia’s turn came, Felicite leaned forward to watch her, and through that imagination which springs from true affection, she at once became the child, whose face and dress became hers, whose heart beat in her bosom, and when Virginia opened her mouth and closed her lids, she did likewise and came very near fainting.”

It’s a sentence with 7 commas. Makes it as a race, like the heart beat, and the excitement mixed with anxiety. If read out loud it is tiring, as if “near fainting”. The description is perfect, the emotion, one can perfectly picture the little Felicite at the edge of the bench, and yet Flaubert doesn’t talk about the thoughts or feelings much, he simply narrates what is happening, as if it were himself.

My Attempt

I have often found myself wondering around on off topic thoughts while reading a book, and before I am aware of it I am already about two pages ahead and I have no idea what I have read. Un willingly I have to back, and while I do so I realize that absolutely every sentence in the book is key, every sentence has a purpose and if I skip it I lose the essence that the author wanted to cause on me. It is interesting, every sentence of books of 150 pages to 500 pages or more, has, obviously, a reason why they were placed there. What that agnorisis of mine has to do with Gary Lutz, The Sentence Is A Lonely Place is that he made me see another reason for not only the sentence but the words that every writer chooses for their sentences.

I never found myself on wondering off thoughts while reading this essay in the first place. I really, thoroughly enjoyed, indeed, every sentence of it. My respects to Lutz. This essay is by far, the most pleasant to read. As I read, he made me change the way I was reading. From the opening sentence the words caught my unconditional attention. All the way till the end I asked to myself repeatedly what was it that made this writing so good, why was I enjoying this much more than the Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow? I guess that the content of what was being written could be applied, or is forced to be applied while one is reading.

“I came to language only late and only peculiarly.” In this nine-word opening sentence there are about six things that I could talk about. I read it the first time and I was driven to highlight it and reread it again four times. He talks about language as if it were a person, or a place. He does this all along the essay, “-this inkling that a word is a solid, something firm and palpable.” He uses the word only twice, and for two very different adjectives: he uses late first, when I should, or could be better placed last, and peculiarly last. To describe how he came into language and maybe to explain why he used late first and not last curiously (this is my attempt to analyze his words choices). Why only late? Why only peculiarly? Why not late and peculiarly? The word only definitely adds style to the sentence, without it, it would be an ordinary sentence.

The Sentence Is A Lonely Place is an exemplary analytic essay. For next assigned essay I will use this as a rubric. Lutz’s structure goes like this:

The introduction is an anecdote of his early life, obviously using hyperbole and figurative language, “…the release of words were the least significant of the mouth’s activities-…” I don’t know how true is the description of how language came into his life but it is interesting.

Lutz then talks about language itself, the feeling of it, his point of view of words and how much they mean to him, the way other authors use it and the way he himself uses them. He says, “…the aim of the literary artist, I believe, is to initiate the process by which the words in a sentence no longer remain strangers to each other but begin to acknowledge one another’s existence…” He talks about his relationship with words and words relationship with another words as if he were talking about a couple that were dating! Even though he is talking about a potentially boring topic he manages to make it as thrilling as an action movie.

The body of the essay is his close reading on sentences from authors like, Christine Shutt, Gordon Lish, Diane Williams, Sam Lipsyte, among others. He does very deep analysis. I knew that the letters in the words that made up a sentence could have an effect on its meaning. But I was not aware that the sound and shape and even symbolic meaning of the letters had such an impact. Lutz’s analysis could be applied to his writing, “A book was, for me, an acquisitive thing, absorbing, accepting, taking invitation to practice hygiene over it- ….” Lutz uses the vowel a to start the three adjectives that he chose to describe what a book was for him. I believe that is called alliteration, but I’m not so good at analyzing so profoundly. Lutz does this from pages 6 to 12 of the 13-page-essay. And again, I am going to use it as a guide for my own close reading.

And finally he concludes with a sentence that wraps almost the whole essay, “Psychiatrists use the term weak central coherence to pinpoint the difficulty of certain autistic persons to get the big central picture, to see the forest instead of the trees.” He is calling himself a person that indeed, has a weak central coherence, because he sees the words, (even the letters) instead of the story.

"What Is It About?"

During my weekend I was asked about the book that I was reading, and this was my dialogue:

Silvia (a friend of mine) looked at my book and asked, “What are you reading?”
I stopped reading and I told her, “It is an assignment for my english class, The Crying Of Lot 49”
She was as confused as before, so she asked me, “What is it about?”
I looked at the book, and I realized that is was 15 pages away from finishing it and I still didn’t really know what was it about… I was blank. I said, “I’m not sure, it is a bunch of inside jokes making fun of things”
Silvia looked puzzled and kept on asking me, “But… what is the author making fun of?” And I was blank again! I felt so stupid, I had been reading a book for about two weeks and I really didn’t know what it was about. So I told her, “Things like, the society, the commercialists, the ordinary things that are daily but stupid.” Still not clear she asked me, “But… why is it called The Crying of Lot 47? What does that mean?” That, I actually had no clue, “I don’t have a clue” I think she surrendered asking me about the book, so she simply kept on reading her magazine about fashion.

I kept on thinking, The Crying Of Lot 49 is just a book that describes, it doesn’t explain anything. There is no way to answer what the book is about. The novel, if it can really be called a novel, is about nothing! I think that the story of Oedipa and the death of Pierce is just an excuse to write about nonsense, just make fun of life. The none significance of life.

“But like the thought that someday she would have to die, Oedipa had been steadfastly refusing to look at that possibility directly, or in any but the most accidental of lights. “No,” she said, “that’s ridiculous.’” (pg.138) This quote, kind of says it all. If she was going to die someday then, why bother to care about ANYTHING that she had been bothering about?!

In a hypothetical case that Silvia asked me again, “What is the book about?” I would answer, “Nothing”

So Yeah... Whatever

I was able to connect the book with what has been out Topic all week: Signifying Nothing.

It is very weird the themes that this book has, if it is read ad a real novel, taking it seriously it will never make any sense, and even if it is read as metaphorically and understanding the message that Pynchon is trying to get trough his lines, it still doesn’t make any sense. Pynchon said that for his books, “Stories much more focused on a single theme usually; novels full of many themes.” (link)
That is exactly what this story is:

The cheating on Mucho with Metzger, the play Courier’s Tragedy, The Trystero, the horns, the sign that looks a little like a key, the Thurns and Taxis, Hilarious (a shrink gone mad), LSD, Pierce’s death, Oedipa’s confusion, The Paranoids, “… etc.” (pg.27)

But, it all actually means nothing. It is fictional, of curse, it is not historical, it is not scientific, it is simply, nothing.

And like in Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5,
“Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Pynchon says,
“the stored, coded years of uselessness, early death, self-harrowing, the sure decay of hope, the set of all men who had slept on it, whatever theirs lives had been, would truly cease to be, forever, when the mattress burned.” (pg. 104)

So, it doesn’t matter if I what I write about is write or wrong, or if Oedipa finally deciphers the million mysteries, because as Macbeth did, Oedipa and I are going to die.

Glorifying Nothing

I found the Hymn of Yoyodyne so interesting that I will dedicate this blog to it (pg 65):

High above the L.A freeways,
And the traffic’s whine,
Stands the well-known Galactronics
Branch of Yoyodyne.
To the end, we swear undying
Loyalty to you,
Pink pavilions bravely shining,
Palm trees tall and true.

What more ridiculous could it be? A hymn for a company of stockholders! And yet, the most amazing thing is that I believe that there are actual companies that DO have a hymn. Wikipedia says that a hymn is “a type of song, usually religious, specifically written for the purpose of praise, adoration or prayer,” it is usually to a divine or holly figure or a personification of it. But Pynchon is using the symbol of a hymn for a company and obviously magnifying the importance of it. We know of countries that have hymns and they are composed of historical events and important historical people of the country. This hymn talks about a company, but not the code of honor, not the ethic of work, but the traffic and “pink pavilions”. Its glorifying a stockholding company, and making big and important the actually insignificant and material things. For example, “Palm trees tall and true” it is written as if it was so profound and meaningful, but they are actually palm trees! Or “High above the L.A freeways,” its describing a freeway! Not a battle of independence or the resurrection of Jesus. It’s a funny hymn, and pathetic.

It Is Funny

I got a better sense of the funny parts of the book in chapter 3, here are some of them:

“Fallopian twinkled. ‘They accuse us of being paranoids.’” (pg.35)
1. The name Fallopian… WTF? I understand that Fallopian TUBES are part of the reproductive system of a female, the two ducts that connect the ovaries with the uterus, where usually the egg is fertilized. Not a name for a person, or the last name of a person.
2. What he says is being paranoid, it is ironic, if someone is paranoid he thinks that he is being followed or accused for or looked at. I read in a bumper sticker once something similar, it said, “I used to be a schizophrenic but now we are okey”. It’s funny.
A guy named Peter Pinguid Society was making a plan to bomb Cape Horn of San Francisco, and two cruisers were around that place and were supposedly going to attack and a squadron was standing there to protect and everything, but “The cruisers, however, seemed to prefer cruising and nothing more.” (pg. 35)
That’s exaggeration. The whole story is an exaggeration of something that wouldn’t happen. I mean cruises are not war weapons. It is making fun of the war, the exaggeration of sending a squadron to guard the city of two cruises.

Then there is this play about the killing of Niccolo and the murderer Angelo, that is a Tragedy, that is funny, like Candide. “At the end of it about the only character left alive in a stage dense with corpses is the colorless administrator, Genaro” (pg 58)
That is another exaggeration! And a funny one that all are dead, and just the administrator is alive.

So yes, it is a satirical play.

A Little Lost

I have never read a book like this one. Clockwork Orange is the most similar book that I have read, it is absurd and thing that have nothing to do with each other happen. I have the same feeling that I had while reading Clockwork Orange, I feel a little lost. I have paid a lot of attention reading the book but sometimes is loose track of what is happening and what Thomas Pynchon is trying to transmit. I know that it is a satire, which is trying to make fun of various things. I know that because in class we discussed it. So obviously I was attentive to the making fun of someone or something and ironies.

One I found was that Oedipa criticized the sign of the motel where she stayed, she thought that, “The face of the nymph was much like Oedipa’s, which didn’t startle her so much as a concealed blower system that kept the nymph’s gauze chiton in constant agitation, revealing enormous vermilion-tipped breasts and long pink thighs at each flap.” (pg.16) The nymph was at the sign of the “Echo Courts” motel. Pynchon is very straight forward, he is making a connection with a hooker and Oedipa. It actually becomes a foreshadow of what is to happen next. Indeed Oedipa is kind of like a hooker, she cheats on her husband, with Metzger, the lawyer. After only one night of flirting around and playing around and, “She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she’d come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera’s already moving.” Oedipa was actually the one that started sex, Metzger was asleep, and she “began kissing him to wake him up.” (pg.29) she becomes the nymph of the sign, the sign that had not surprised her, because it was herself.

WEIRD

This is the perfect example of absurdity. This is a very random story. I cannot find the connections between the different events. Oedipa jumps from getting a letter, to wanting to escape, to being Rapuntzel and back and forth. While I was reading I was trying to find solutions to what was happening. In no real story things like that happen, so there most be some kind of other meaning behind it, obviously. I came to the conclusion that Oedipa is either more than one person, or she is mentally sick, as she herself suspects.

Either way, I think that I need to read more to get a broader idea. For now, The Crying of Lot 49 looks interesting.

Prisoner's Dilemma

The Game:

Get as much reward as possible.

The Rules:

Two players, each has two cards:
1. COOPERATE 2. DEFECT

Each player has to put one card downwards in the table so the opponent cannot see. They turn the card up simultaneously.

The possible outcomes:

The two players have COOPERATE card: Each gets $300.

The two players have DEFECT card: they are fined $10.

Player A has DEFECT and Player B has COOPERATE. Player A takes $500 for the Temptation and Player B has a $100 fine for being a Sucker.

Player A has COOPERATE and Player B has DEFECT. Player A has a fine of $100 for being a Sucker and Player B takes $500 for the Temptation.

KEY TERMS:
Sucker: someone who helps others unconditionally and are exploited.
(pg. 202-204)

I LOVE THIS GAME! I played it with my family to see what happens and as Dawkins said that, “Whole shelves in libraries are devoted to the ramifications of this beguiling game,” (pg. 203) he is indeed right. There is the part of everyone that want to win and get the bets regard and is tempted to draw the DEFECT card and wait for the other player to be nice and draw the COOPERATE card.

I thought of Macbeth, and I found the connection of greed and temptation and not counting if the opponent will fight back or not. Macbeth’s DEFECT card is Lady Macbeth, she is the one that drives him into taking that card, but his opponent’s reactions, Malcolm and Macduff, is something that Macbeth cannot anticipate. He is not allowed to see their card, not in Prisoner’s Dilemma. I think even the title is the perfect description of Macbeth’s situation, he is in a dilemma. He is a prisoner of his wife and of the prediction that the three witches. He gives in to greed and takes the DEFECT card out, and his opponents as well, and they are fined with the cost of their lives.

Popular Culture

I think that from the whole book, the most interesting fact for me has been the memes. I never thought of it like that, I have it known as popular culture. I remember that Mr. Hickey once told us about it, he said that there is some knowledge that everybody simply acquires because “everybody knows it”. Dawkins plots this concept in a very interesting way. He says it is genes, the meme genes. These genes replicate themselves through human minds. Dawkins says that the memes are the new kind of replicators. , “Examples of the memes are tunes, ideas, catch phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.” (pg. 192) If you look at history we are changing at an amazing speed, developing. I even remember that things were different when I was little, and I am only 16 years old. My mind has changed because it has been influenced by memes of other people that stick in my mind and I pass it to other people’s minds.

If memes are replicators, theoretically they should copy themselves identically, but they don’t. I see them similar to gossip, but in a positive way. Every time it is passed to someone, it is changed according to that person’s thoughts. I do think that memes are the most immortal thing in the world. Dawkins says that, “Once the genes have provided their survival machines with brains that are capable of rapid imitation, the memes will automatically take over.” (pg. 200) There is no way to abolish the passing on of memes, it is passed on by generations. We know of people like Galileo Galilei that lived hundreds of years ago and is still very alive within ourselves. What that has to do with selfishness… I don’t know, but I like the concept.

Win Over Him

What I found more interesting in this chapter, You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours, was the relationship between the family, affecting how the investment between one another is. I researched in the New York Times an article about selfishness and altruism between family and I found a very interesting one. Steven D. Levitt says in his excerpt, Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism, that depending on the wealth of an individual there is different love and apathy given to him, he says that studies have shown that, ‘an elderly parent in a retirement home is more likely to be visited by his grown children if they are expecting a sizable inheritance.’’ This is a rather selfish act, that is, for me, being interested, a hypocrite. Dawkins says something similar about female hymenoptera ants. They want to have more sisters than brothers because sister ants are more closely related (genetically) and therefore can replicate themselves more easily. Because of wanting more sisters Dawkins says that, ‘’this might well predispose a female to farm her own mother as an efficient sister-making machine.” (pg. 175) Female hymenoptera ants that are born form queen ants don’t care about their mothers, only if they are able to give them sisters that are ¾ more related to them than if another mother or father give sisters to them. Once again, that is being an interested human being, a hypocrite.

I have come to realize that most of us are interested in other people’s relationship because of our own wellbeing. In the NYT excerpt because of money inheritance and in the hymenoptera ants because of gene inheritance and replicating themselves. If this is so right from the very species of ants, it should not come to a surprise that we encounter hypocrites in our social circles. Levitt says that, ‘’Economists have traditionally assumed that the typical person makes rational decisions in line with his own self- interest.’’ He is arguing whether a person that donates to charity is doing this to fake an altruistic act but his actual interest is having the name of a helper for charity. There is no way to know the actual intentions of a person, more less of an ant. Dawkins doesn’t know which the actual intentions of an ant are. ‘’The war will be won by whoever manages to get more of her genes into the next generation, via the bodies of the reproductives.’’ (pg. 178)I think that the only thing for sure that there is a rivality between all individuals. Humans, siblings, parents, ants, genes, etc. And the way to live through this rivality is by figuring out ways to outnumber the opponent, and win over him.

The Visual Sex Battle

Am I An Investment?

Battle of the Generations reminded me of the stand up comedy of Andres Lopez that was so popular in Colombia about the different generations, La Pelota De Letras. Andres Lopez talks about a similar concept, obviously not in scientific matters but more of life facts. He says that the generations of below are one social class higher than the previous generation, for example, the children think of themselves of a better family than their own parents. It is a difficult issue to understand because it is related to Colombian culture, yet, Dawkins states that, “It us too small and weak to bully its parents physically, but it uses every psychological weapon at its disposal: lying, cheating, deceiving, exploiting […]” (pg.131) it is a little harsh and very disappointing to think of a child being so cruel to its parents, but it is absolutely true. I have done it, and my brother has done it. Whether it has to do with the gene pool and the genes trying to survive over the other, or if it has to do that the mother has half her genes in her child and not vice versa, I don’t know. I am learning about it while I read, but it does not matter to me. It is sad that, “we must expect that individuals will cheat, will tell lies about how hungry they are.” (pg.130) according to Dawkins, our genes are responsible to such behavior, it is “expected” if we know that we are going to cheat, how could there be trust, or as Dawkins said, how can a parent be able to avoid “getting fooled”.

I have not liked the way Dawkins talks about having a child, I don’t see a son or a daughter as an investment, I don’t think that my parents were thinking on how much I will pay of when they found out that they were going to have a baby. Dawkins says that, “Nevertheless, she should weigh up whether it would not pay her more to invest in grandchildren, nephews […]since although they are half as closely related to her as her own children […]”(pg. 126) He means that according on how related someone is to us how much they pay off will be? Or how good the investment will be? The whole chapter Dawkins is talking about favoritism between the children and what are the best investments for children and the unit to measure it for the mothers. I find it a little materialistic, I know I should not be seeing it that way and that it is a science book, a biology book and it is not supposed to talk about family as a novel, but it annoys me. I hate to think of me as an investment for my mom.

The Fighters

Hawk: Fight as hard as they can, “unrestrainedly”, he will almost always win because they only give up if they are very hurt.

Dove: Seldom threatens an opponent, not with the intention to hurt or get hurt. If he is fought at, he runs away.

Retaliator: fights like a dove, does not want to get hurt, but if the opponent attacks, then the retaliator will fight back. He changes his way of fighting according to his opponent. “conditional strategist”

Bully: He is attacking everybody (like a hawk), and when someone fights back, he runs away.

Prober-retaliator: He does not give up attacking like a hawk if his opponent doe not fight back. If there is an attack back he only threatens like a dove.

This description can actually be found in humans, us, the way we behave. Obviously it is a little generalized, but in some way each one of us fits in one of the categories of fighters. If I am to out myself into one I think it would be a retaliator, I change my behavior according to whom I am addressing and what is the purpose. I am a conditional strategist. Dawkins is trying to prove that the strategy of type of aggressor that survives is the good one. Then the retaliator is the best one, “If all the five strategies I have mentioned are turned loose upon one another in a computer simulation, only one of them, retaliator, emerges as evolutionarily stable.” (pg.74) I agree that it is the most stable one, but I don’t think that it applies to always. There are different environments, and there needs to be different types of fighters for the different environments. For a peaceful place, a hawk would not be appropriate because he would win over all the dove inhabitants and he would be alone, of as Dawkins suggests, he invades the place and takes over. But then it would be stock in a cycle of changing inhabitants with different strategies that would take over each other! Peace could not be reached…

Behavior

Survival Machines-------- feed from organic molecules------organic molecules gone-----plants----sun food (photosynthesis)----animals----feed from plants-----humans----feed from animals.

“This sub-branching has given rise to the immense diversity of animals and plants which so impresses us today.” (pg.46) right from the beginning of times we have an urge to develop and become bigger and better every time. This chapter was about the behavior of the survival machines, the difference between what we desire and the current state of the things. Because of the difference of our present state and the desired state is that we are constantly developing. “It is built in such a way that the larger this discrepancy is, the harder the machine works.” (pg. 50) the discrepancy that it is talked about is between the present state of a being, or in this case, a machine, and the desired state. Personally, my discrepancy is very large. I constantly want to be much more that what I am. According to Selfish Gene, this makes me evolve, and thanks to this behavior is that the survival machines are always evolving. This was interesting, I never thought of humans as survival machines, but we actually are, the problem is that we have grown so much that survival is taken for granted. I think that the only fact that we have a desired state makes us be selfish. The difference is if we affect others in other to get to the desired state.

I think that it is impossible to live without affecting others as one is living, right? We need communication, we need socializing, interacting, “A survival machine may be said to have communicated with another one when it influences its behavior or the state of its nervous system.” (pg. 63) this is a very scientific way to say it, but it right. Every time someone talks to someone else, the behavior changes, there is a reaction, no matter how minimal the reaction can be, but there is one. If I see it that way, I would like to cause a positive reaction every time I communicate with someone. I think that if I am able to always change the behavior of someone else in a good way, then I could maybe change the world, in a 0.00000000000001%. It counts.

No Escape

I have read so many things of so many different subjects that my head is all twisted and confused. Thank God I am learning inheritance in Biology class and I am not as lost as I could be. The Replicators (Chapter 2) is a summary of the beginning of the earth, right from the very bottom, the atoms. It is really hard for me to picture the Earth as made up of atoms and the combinations of different elements. I cannot understand how we came to be the way we are, there are so many different things in the world, so much diversity and the difference of everything, even from the same species makes me wonder if what Dawkins is stating is really true. The replicator theory is very confusing and I don’t get it very much, the only thing that did interested me was the fact that is was a mistaken replicator, “But now we must mention an important property of any copying process: it is not perfect. Mistakes will happen.” (pg.16) Not only the fact that this is an important characteristic of the replicator interests me, but that thanks to the errors, evolution is sparked. This scientific theory reinforces another thing that I said in one of my blogs, there needs to be mistakes happening in order to improve! From the very core of our existence, the replicator, the molecules have to be mistaken to do evolution.

If it wasn’t because of Ms. Blesgreaft I am sure I would not have understood a thing about Immortal Coils (Chapter 3), and I would have probably needed to re read about a hundred times. Reproduction is a VERY complex process. The crossing-over of the chromosomes in genes and the different traits that are passed on, such as the brown or blue eyes example, is the factor that makes each individual, indeed, an individual. Nonetheless, this book proves to us that the genes of our ancestors do not die, “When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.” (pg.35), in other words, there is no way to escape the fate that we are condemned to. For millions of years we have been that way, and for millions of years we will be that way.

Better Than Expected

As I saw the title of the book, the size of the letter and the back description of the content I filled myself with courage to start reading because I figured it would be a very boring and complicated book. To my surprise, it isn’t, so far. I have actually read with enthusiasm. I find the book written in a very simple language, the diction is for almost all audience, which makes it obviously more pleasant.

The main issue caught my attention, especially because in my previous blog I talked about it. I said that, “We have always been like that, there is an evil part in every single one of us, every individual has acted wrongly in some way.” In Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks about how we are condemned to being selfish because it is part of our biological system, unfortunately. I have always thought that there had to be some scientific explanation to our acts, why have he always been the way we are? What is the reason behind it? According to the book: our genes. In order to change this, and break the cycle we have to become altruistic. The way I see it, it mission impossible. Dawkins says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” (pg. 3) This brings down my hope. I think of all the people that make campaigns to prolong the good in everyone, all their effort is in vein. All the many protests against violence and to promote peace in the world, all in vein. I don’t like to feel that way, but all the facts that Dawkins is stating, do make me hesitate on the possibility to have a better planet.

He says that they fight and kill just to “protect” or “defend” our nation, regardless if we are fighting against our own species, “Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation.” (pg.9) I have written about that before, because it does amazes me. I consider myself incapable of killing another human being, no matter where he from is or what he had done, killing him is like killing someone like me. That has feelings, and thoughts, and a life. If this selfishness comes in our genes, is there a way to take it out?

The End

What a story! Candide is full of drama, humor, tragedy, romance, murder, philosophy and mockery. An exaggeration of everything through an exceptional class humor, I enjoyed noticing the target of mockery in the novel, and picturing to myself the scenes and characters. I laughed out loud in many occasions, my brother would ask me from across the room what was I laughing at, and I would answer, the stupidity of the story. Every event was exaggerated. Every character was a mockery of a real person or persons in life. Voltaire makes fun of the high aristocracy a lot. Right from the very beginning I noticed that he had that specific target. He mentions Governors, Barons, Priests, Inquisitors, and Kings among many others, and plots them with hyperbole and irony. It is a criticism of the high class people, and how foolish it actually is.

In between all the funny things and the satirical writing, there was some real philosophical analysis in the story. Maybe not in comparison to what is actually philosophy, but I managed to get some quote that could be useful in life. For example, in page 93, Candide’s friend Martin was talking about the evil and good forced to Candide, “I have scarcely seen a town which does not seek for the ruin of a neighboring town, nor a family that does not wish to exterminate another family. You will find that the weak always detest the strong and cringe before them, and that the strong treat them like so many sheep to be sold for their meal and wool.” When I read this, I did not find the humorous part of it, I took it very seriously. It is true what he is stating, in our evil world we are seeking for the bad to others in order for us to have the best. If we could care more about others then everybody would be having good things. My aunt always tells me that “the best is the enemy of the good”, if you seek for the best the good is nothing because it will never be enough. The good becomes the weak, and the best becomes the strong. In our world the best, the strong, will eventually fall while the good, or the weak can always improve.

When Candide was stolen, the thief was defeated by a Spaniard, and Candide says, “You observe,’ said Candide to Martin, ‘that crime is always punished. That rogue Dutch captain has had the fate he deserved.” (pg.93) I think that we do always get the fate we deserve, I deeply believe in karma, even though sometime in life it was defraud me, I think that we get what we earn, from our actions. If we do wrong, something bad or unfortunate will come to us, and vice versa. That’s why I act as cautious as I can, to deserve the good.

“But what was the world created for?’ said Candide. ‘To drive us mad,’ replied Martin.” (pg. 95) I could not agree more. Maybe not the world, but yes life. Life is there to drive us mad. Mad about living, mad about loving, mad about feeling.
Candide describes very well what we have unfortunately become in these lines, “Do you think,’ said Candide, ‘ that men have always massacred each other, as they do to-day, that they have always been false, cozening, faithless, ungrateful, thieving, weak, inconstant, mean-spirited, envious, greedy, drunken, miserly, ambitious, bloody, slanderous, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical and stupid?’” (pg. 96) Yes, it is a little exaggerated, but mostly true. We have always been like that, there is an evil part in every single one of us, every individual has acted wrongly in some way. Some more that others, but I am certain that everybody has done something wrong. It is human nature. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. We were born that way. The only problem is that, we are supposed to learn from it. Many never realized they could have known better.

Voltaire wraps the whole story with this theory, “When man was placed in the Garden of Eden, he was put there ‘to dress it and keep it’, to work, in fact; which proves that man was not born to an easy life.” (pg. 143) Candide’s journey all over the world, all the calamities and challenges he finds in his way, is because “man was not born to an easy life.” We are not supposed to have it all figured out. We are trusted to work it out, to make the best of it and struggle along. If not, why do we live for?

Random

From castles, and Barons, romances and “Buenos Ayres” we jump to necked ladies and monkey lovers. That’s random. “They found that the cries came from two naked girls who were tripping along the edge of the meadow, while two monkeys followed them nibbling their buttocks.” (pg. 69) Candide feels guilty about killing already three people, and thinks that if he kills the monkeys he would safe the ladies. But he actually killed the lovers of the ladies! Everything turns upside down. This reminded me of Mr. Bean, i hate that series, and i don’t like that kind of humor, but for Mr. Bean, everything he does ends up happening the opposite of what is expected. For Candide, after killing the monkeys, “during the night they had been tied to a tree with ropes of pith by the Orneillons, the inhabitants of the country, to whom the two ladies had denounced them.” (pg. 70) Those are the kinds of things that happen only to Mr. Bean, in other context though. Mr. Bean things are explicitly funny, they are supposed to go wrong and for Candide, theya re not supposed to go wrong, but they do. In this clip, Mr. Bean is trying to entertain a boy, but everything he does is messed up and he ends up being all screwed and indeed he entertains the boy, but its all exaggerated and random as well.

Target

I just realized that all along I have read and understood the book the WRONG way. But I do not regret it, because I like learning from my mistakes. Today’s class I found out that it takes practice to get the tone right to the writing and understand what it is meant to transmit. I thought that Candide had some pieces of satire, yet not that the whole piece was a satire. And looking back I understand that it is true, that it actually is satire. Every event has a target, a mockery that has a specific target. An individual or a generalization, but it does have a target. I couldn’t believe it! It felt so good to understand much better. Is not that I had found the book boring, I didn’t, I actually likes it and had enjoyed it a lot, but now that I know that it is A satire, it get to enjoy it more, get the juice of it.

“He was a quarter Spaniard of half-breed Argentine stock, and had been successively chorister, verger, sailor, monk, commercial traveler, soldier, and footman.” (pg. 61) this satire is targeted to the slaves. Most servants are useful for absolutely everything, and probably know more than the master, but they are not recognized because of it.
“He made a sign, at which twenty-four soldiers surrounded the two new-comers.” Jajaja! Voltaire is evidently making fun through the novel of the aristocracy, the noblemen, the kings, Governors and all the people in power. The exaggeration of their power and wealth, that with just a gesture, twenty four soldiers come in.

A Movie

Yesterday I saw a movie that touched me, and even though I am not supposed to talk about that but about Candide, I think it is worth the entry. It is called Into The Wild. It’s about a boy that leaves everything behind and escapes from his family and society to live, literally, into the wild. His only company is books, he reads a lot of books and applies everything that he reads, all the teachings, the quotes into his own experiences. He was so full of knowledge and thirst for more that every moment he made it worthwhile. I identified with him in some way, I have always wanted to do something radical in my life, twist it 180 degrees and see what happens, but I have never actually dared to do so. Books encourage me to, as they encouraged him, and along with books this class, I have learned to see things other way, to find the fifth leg of in a cat. I love getting the best of every author, paraphrasing them into my own life, and even though I’m not such a reader, I do enjoy what I read, and I know that the good in every novel will stay in my mind, as long as I let it stay.

The Scenes

While reading the chapters i wanted to picture every scene in my mind as a play in a musical, like the clip. The conversation of the Naples guy and the old women, the daughter of the Princess of Palestine, I imagined it as both sitting in the bat telling the stories and a crowd behind them laughing at the exaggerations of their anecdotes. I pictured Lady Cunégonde’s expressions, “Just imagine the situation of a Pope’s daughter, fifteen years old, who in the space of three months had suffered poverty and slavery, had been ravished almost everyday, seen her mother quartet, endured the horrors of famine and battle, and was then dying of plague in Algiers.” (pg.55) She raising her arms and covering her face, frowning at her own misery. Obviously the scene is supposed to be funny and entertaining.

Another very interesting scene was the arrival to “Buenos Ayres” and meeting with the Governor, “Don Fernando d’Ibaraa y Figueroa y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza” (pg. 58), a very over dressed men, fat and full of jewelry with a long mustache, “the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of mustaches.” (pg. 59) over touching Lady Cunégonde and staring at Candide with disgrace. I imagine him talking in English with a Spanish accent and putting too much emphasis at what he says. Just imagining the scenes makes me laugh, out loud.

Surprises

I never imagined that Candide would kill. I always thought that he was a noble man, a charming and loving man that had gone through a lot of things but was wise enough not to commit such things as murder! Many people surprise me, I get “carried away by the appearances” (Epictetus) and judge sometimes in ways that I shouldn’t, and then that person does something that I did not expect and the whole judgment of that person is changed. Maybe by a comment, an action or a gesture, the person becomes someone else. Well, now I picture Candide differently. “I’ve got into the way of killing people. There’s no time to hesitate.” (pg. 45) He not only kills Issachar, but the Cardinal Inquisitor. But, why did he do it? He killed Issachar to defend himself, “With these words he drew a long dagger, which he always carried, and hurled himself at Candide, without pausing to think whether his opponent was armed.” (pg. 44) In a way, that’s an excuse. In the U.S if you kill someone for self defense you are not charged as a murderer, and are not taken to jail. I forgive Candide for killing Issachar, nonetheless I do not accept the murder of the Inquisitor. He did it just to get rid of a trouble. He knew that he might accuse him for the murder of Issachar, so he just avoided the problem by killing him!

The old lady is another one that surprised me. She happens to be the daughter of a Pope and a Princess, and not only a maid, as she seemed to be. She had to go through the same things or even worse than Lady Cunégonde. And again, do not get carried away by appearances.

Everything Happens For A Reason

The cliché says that “Everything happens for a reason.” (Everybody), parents tell you that, friends tell you that, teachers tell you that, and even Voltaire tells you that. You fall days before a competition and break a leg, the car’s tire gets pinched in your way to a party, you get splashed by a car when you are wearing a dress for an important even, you get sick before a trip, etc. They tell you when you are screaming in fury or crying in sadness that “everything happens for a reason” that’s why one should not be worried, but glad that it happened. Sometimes you later realize that it is true, or not. Do you believe in it? I do.

Candide has been going through a series of unfortunate events ever since he was born. He didn’t know who him mother was, some claimed that, “he was the son of the Baron’s sister” (pg. 19) but no one is sure, and his father he didn’t know either, only that he was supposedly from the same neighborhood. But thanks to that, he lives with the Baron and all his commodities, and he meets Pangloss, the tutor of the Baron’s son and he also meets Lady Cunégonde, by whom he falls in love. Candide kisses her behind the screen and because the Baron was passing by he kicked Candide out. Because of that he is then taken to the army, when then he is flogged and finally meets his so beloved tutor Pangloss again! Because of that they later are recruited for a voyage to Lisbon. A storm catches them in Lisbon, making half of the passengers to die, but him, Pangloss and another sailor. That leads them to the village of Coimbra and are taken under arrest “one for speaking and the other for listening with an air of approval.” (pg. 36). Pangloss is hanged and Candide is saved by an old woman of the multitude. This old woman takes him to his beloved Lady Cunégonde, who Candide believed as dead.

If after that you don’t believe that everything happens for a reason. You are in trouble.

Not Explicitly

I have to accept that I actually got excited with these two chapters. I understood how, listening to Radio Lab, reading Slaughterhouse-Fie and reading the Handbook of Epictetus were all connected, only by these two chapters, and part from the previous one. Even learning satire and the characteristics is involved and wrapped together with Candide. Pangloss is Epictetus, the tutor of Candide that is Billy Pilgrim, or Kurt Vonnegut, the concepts of Pangloss are Radio Lab’s experiments on free will, and it all involves satire. For example, “During treatment, Pangloss lost only an eye and an ear.” (pg. 31) This quotation can be interpreted in many ways. It can be satire, it is using hyperbole by the fact that Pangloss had “lost only”, as if loosing an eye and an ear were nothing important of relevant, when it actually is. If it is analyzed as Epictetus would, then he is just letting his fate flow, it is not up to him what he looses or what he doesn’t,
I think both ways are right. “On the voyage Pangloss explained to him how all was designed for the best.” (pg. 31) As I stated before, Pangloss is the representation of Epictetus, maybe not explicitly, but theoretically, yes. He believes that if he lets nature destiny lead him to where he is supposed to be, not manipulating the things that are not up to him, then “it is all design for the best”. The book itself states a question that was tried to answer by experiments in Radio Lab, such as how the brain works in specific situations, dividing it up into rational and emotional sides of the brain. “Then you don’t believe in Free Will, sir?’ said the officer.”(pg. 35) Pangloss doesn’t, he believes that free will is dependable of Absolute Necessity. Does Epictetus agree on that? It might. Epictetus says that what is up to is what we can change, and therefore we are not supposed to be worrying about the things that are not up to us, so we cannot choose from those that are not up to us, because if we do, we would be miserable. Is Free Will dependable of Absolute Necessity? It probably is.

Connections

“At the court martial he was graciously permitted to choose between being flogged thirty-six times by the whole regiment or having twelve bullets in his brain.” (pg. 24) What would you choose?
I asked my mother, she said that she would prefer being flogged thirty-six times, and asked her why, she said that she just had to go through a lot of pain and then there was hope of living, of life, and that was all it mattered. I asked my dad, he said that he would also choose the flogging, I asked him why, he said because he would not give up so easily. No matter what were the odds for him to survive, he would not give up in one decision of ending the suffering or bearing more suffering for later be alive. I asked myself, and surprisingly I think I would have preferred to be shot. I asked myself why, and I think that I prefer death than humiliation, with the whipping the whole regiment would enjoy my suffering while I cried and tried to behave under the pain. I would prefer to die. My way of thought surprised me, I am not a person that gives up so easily, I usually go as far as I can to get what I want, but I would give up if it comes to war.

By the third chapter of Candide I realized that it is a novel of war, there was a portrait of a war that had just ended that reminded me of Slaughterhouse-Five, I realized that Candide was indeed an antiwar book as well. There was a kind of much more subtle mocking than in Slaughterhouse-Five, but there is, “Bugles, fifes, oboes, drums, and salvoes of artillery produced such a harmony as hell itself could not rival.” (pg. 25) It is a piece of satire! It is a hyperbole, and an absurdity for Voltaire to talk about the “beauty and brilliance” of the war setting. At first sight it appears as though he actually believes so, but he doesn’t, this quote made me understand that he was not serious: “Finally, the bayonet provided ‘sufficient reason’ for the death of several thousands.” (pg. 25) Voltaire does not think that there is such thing as enough reason to kill thousands of people, if he did, he would not have used the tone he did, or the quotations. My statement is reinforced by the way the “theater of war” was described so obscene, in page 26, “Whichever way he looked, the ground was strewn with the legs, arms, and brains of dead villagers.”

I not only connected what I read from Candide with Slaughterhouse-Five, but with Epictetus. Candide was taught the theory of cause and effect by the brilliant tutor Pangloss, and he tells the only man that takes care of him in the village what his tutor had taught him, “…he told me that all is for the best in this world of ours,” (pg. 27) The Handbook of Epictetus states that, nature does not bring anything wrong, that everything that is naturally occurring that is not up to us is good, never bad. Just like Candide says. At least he had that clear.

No Man Like Him

Oh my God! Can there be a more amazing person, sorry, Baron, on Earth? He is such an exemplary man! He is in charge of the village Westphalia, as completed his duty succesfully. He had such fine judgment, oh! I wish I could be like him! So modest was he, that he bragged about his incredible mansion that “had a door and several windows” (pg. 19). In Westphalia, he had so much respect and was so influencial that everybody laughed at his jokes, how could they not? His son, whom has very much like himself, had a tutor, whom I would have love to have! Pangloss was his name. he proved that “there is no effect without a cause”, can you believe it? That means that for example, you cannot laugh if there is nothing that makes you laugh, for instance Baron Thunder-ten-Tronckh’s jokes.

The Baron was so nice that he was taking care of Candide a very simple lad that was not even his son! But without hesitation he took care of him, even though he was the son of a “worthy gentleman” (pg. 19) that just didn’t appear. Pangloss states that legs are to for breeches to be used and that’s why he wears them, along with Candide. I cannot find another reason for the intention of legs but to wear breeches, or noses than to have spectacles, no for smelling whatsoever, but for spectacles! The Baron didn’t hesitate a second that Pangloss was the best tutor for his son. Oh! And the baroness daughter! Lady Cunegonde was so fine, so well educated that fell for a kiss of Candide, the young simple lad. But ofcorse she was also interested in science! She found amazing that legs were intended to wear breeches, that triggered her to learn and learn more about cause and effect, and how when she drops her handkerchief at the precise moment she might end up kissing and touching with the characteristic Candide.

Do Not Swallow It All

Epictetus is trying to encourage avoiding mistakes. It is a guide to be tranquil, to live as the best way possible, to not get frustrated, isn’t it? If you are not supposed to be a football player, no matter how much you want it to be, you will not be. I agree that one has to analyze what it takes to do or be whatever you want to be. I committed that mistake, I thought I could be a ballet dancer starting to dance at 14 years old, turns out I started too late and I don’t have the muscles to be one, as Epictetus says, “But consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and undertake the action in the light of that.” (Section 29), what leads to be a ballet dancer building the muscles according to it, training almost everyday, having an specific weight, I don’t have that. Therefore, I cannot be one. I consider myself a “child” as Epictetus describes it, “who play wrestlers on time, gladiators another time, blow trumpets another time, then act a play.” (Section 29) I want to be a good student, read books, sing, dance, run, do Pilates, go to the gym, and be good at every single thing. Epictetus says I shouldn’t, I say I love to.

Yet, I don’t agree with some of the advices. Epictetus is wrong that one should care the same about other’s loses than in our own. How can we? If a beloved one, a part of our life dies it hurts us much more than it will hurt someone else. There is no way to change that feeling. “But when one’s own dies, immediately it is, “Alas! Poor me!” But we should have remembered how we feel when we hear of the same thing about others” (Section 26) There is no point of comparison. I know that when it comes to a cup we should not give much importance or different importance if its our cup or someone else’s… but not a love one, is not the same. Epictetus cannot compare a thing to a someone, is not the same and it will not be. I have learned not to believe everything I read. Even though Epictetus might be based on thorough studies and might be effective if well practiced, I do not take it all for granted.

Frost's Letter

Mr. Frost,

If I may, let me tell you that you are mistaken. You say that what the future might be, you can see it and take the best decision because id up to you. Well, sorry to put it down for you, but it is not up to you. You have analyzed two ways to go, your destiny and have not accepted what is to come naturally. I think that you have to be ready for anything, yet not decide it. You have to say to yourself when something goes not according to planned, “I want to take a bath and to keep my choices in accord with nature.” (Section 4) When two option where proposed to you in your aging time, you “I took the one less traveled by,” (Robert Frost, the Road Not Taken, 19.) interfering with what is not up to you! How could you? If you had just taken the decision that naturally was going to be, then you would not be miserable and not have to “be telling this with a sigh,” (The Road Not Taken, 17.) But with a smile and felt “freedom and happiness,” (Section 1) of not averring a road that might not be the appropriate for you Mr. Frost.

I say you have to learn that you are not the one that takes the decision of your life, “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.” (Section 17)Since you are not the playwright then why are you choosing which way to go, analyzing both roads, “and looked down one as far as I could” (4). If I were to teach you what is it that you are supposed to do to not be miserable and upset, I would have taken the road more traveled. The road that naturally appeals to be traveled and therefore is more traveled. I assure you Mr. Frost that if you listen to my advices, your poems would be different along with your life. “And that has made all the difference” (20)

Sincerely,

Epictetus

Got It?

Unfortunately death is something that we might never the accustomed to, even though it is our judgments that are dreadful, death creates sadness, loneliness and sorrow. Sadly, there are not many people that follow the teachings of the Handbook of Epictetus, nor of the many other philosophical books, and do grief when there is death. The loss of a loved one is one of the most painful sensations. No matter how much we know about life and how it should be lived. Section 21 states that, “ Let death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively.” There is no way to avoid death or exile. Something that you can do is try not to avoid it. I think that is way Epictetus is trying to day with this section, death will happen, just try not to avoid it because you can’t and if you don’t try to avoid then when it comes it does not hit you that hard.

When pain happens to you, we usually ask ourselves, “why me?” and question “why not him? Or her?” There is no point of argument. Everybody has a different director of their own play. Epictetus says that, “you cannot demand an equal shade if you did not do the same things, with a view to getting things that are not up to us.” (Section 25) Everybody has something that is up to them, and that is not up to us, what is up to is what we can change, we cannot change what is up to them. JA! Got that? The point is, that there is no reason why to compare yourself to someone else, because their things are theirs because they pay for them, you haven’t. When suffering comes knocking on your door is because that is the way it is supposed to be, and it hasn’t knocked on others door because it might knock later for something else, “If they are bad, do not be angry that you did not get them.” (Section 25)

Be Carried Away

Appearance is a very controversial thing. Billions of dollars are spent for appearance, physical appearance, marketing appearance, money appearance, etc. We were raised to buy appearance. Specially be carried away by it. In the industry, most of the budget is used in selling appearance, the marketing industry is one of the biggest industries and they specialize in appearance. Make up! Being skinny, buying nice cloths, hair cuts, it is al about learning how to sell your appearance. And even though we are told a million times that it is what’s inside that counts and not the outside, we keep on buying make up and judging appearances. Epictetus Handbook, in sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 says, “do not be carried away by the appearance.” I think it is a very strong statement. When you buy something, even though you want it, you are buying its appearance, what you see, what you get through your eyes. As Epictetus says, if you do, you are not be free. You have to know what are the things that are up to you, appearances are not. “Most importantly, therefore, try not to be carried away by appearance, since if you once gain time and delay you will control yourself more easily.” (Section 20) How can you gain time and delay? The only way is by letting things flow, as I stated in the previous blog. If I can learn as much as I want form this Handbook, I will at least try not to get carried away, but try, as the cliché says, look in the insight and control myself more easily.

Naturally

WOW.

I have a real interest in Handbooks like this. Last year I read Confucius, and the Tao Te Ching, and even though I had trouble understanding completely what was it that was tried to be transmitted, I did enjoy it. I need people or books (in this case) to remind me that life cannot be seen by one perspective, that there is infinite ways to act, to think, to feel, to see and that my job is to find the right way.

The way I understood it, every section has an idea that links to the following section and the previous one. Section 4 talks about not getting annoyed by stupid things. I think that section was directed to me, I need to learn to say as Epictetus says to, “Oh, well, I wanted not only this but also to keep my choices in accord with nature, and I cannot do that if I am annoyed with things that happen.” (Section 4) I hate that things don’t go accordingly to planned. But again, I need to understand that it is not of my own to control that, “But if you think that only what is your is yours, and that what is not yours is, …, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you.” (Section 1) What it mine and what is not mine? How can I determine that? Epictetus suggests that things like our opinion, or decisions or dreams are up to us, but that our body and reputation are not up to us. Which, I have to disagree. It depends on us (is up to us) if we are considered a disciplined person or an honest person or a liar, we decide if our character is one way or another, no one else determines that, among other statements I disagree with.

As I pointed out, letting things flow by nature takes a big effort from me. “Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen,” (Section 8) I have always been taught to seek for events to happen as I wish them to happen: the score on a test, the future of my life or the outcome of am effort. If I can’t wait for them to happen was I want to, then maybe just act without giving too much though about it, “Make use only of impulse and its contrary rejection,” (Section 2)

Why So It Goes?

Kurt Vonnegurt attitude towards the people that die in his book has a sense of being.

Based on the Tralfamadorians, the person doesn’t die, just the corpse.
(pg. 27)

He himself is not afraid of death and sees it as a n upcoming event. (pg.143)

Some examples of his attitude (pg.101)

God Grant Me

I know that of all the events that end the last two last chapters, the silver chain around Montana Wildhack’s neck is not the most important thing. Nonetheless, it is to me. The prayer or quotation that is written in the necklace, has been very important to me. Throughout a long time it has helped me and my family. It is known to be the prayer for the addicts. In AA (alcoholic Anonymous), the quote is prayed in the beginning and sometimes end of every session.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” (pg.209)

I can read this citation over and over again, and every time I read, it has an effect in me. Every line has a very strong meaning. I wonder why Vonnegut chose this phrase to be mentioned twice in his novel. (pg. 60 and 209) I guess that it helped him to overcome the post war shock as well, they way it helped me. In terms of war, having the serenity to accept that he cannot change might make him admit that he alone cannot change the conflicts and actions that some nations make. Redundantly Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war book, therefore he is somehow fighting war (having the courage to accept the things he can) by writing this book, but recognizing that even though it is pathetic, it still fought, and he fought it. When Vonnegut mocks war with pieces of satire and science fiction he has the wisdom to tell the difference.

As in what the book leaves to me, a very different view of what a war book might be (or in this case and anti-war). Vonnegut transmits his thoughts of war very clearly, the way he talks about it and the tone and attitude that he attributes to his accounts, not only makes me get a different perspective of the bombing in Dresden and war itself but enjoy the book.

He Is Eventually Killed

“There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.” (pg.164). The only character of the story is himself, Billy Pilgrim. Vonnegut talks a lot about “poor old Derby”, he is very shocked that he was killed by a series of shooting. He talks about him like if he were a much loved person in his life. As he himself says, he is one of the only real characters of his story, besides himself. Derby reminds me of the father in La Vita e Bella he was also killed shot many time against a wall. Guido (the father) was also the only one trying to be a character; he was inventing a story for his son not to be discouraged by the horrid environment of war, and he was the protagonist of the story. This also happens during World War II. He is eventually killed, as is Derby.

As we discussed, the way Vonnegut has organized the events and the way he talks about the bombing is not as expected. How can the song of a foursome be described and given more importance to than the actual bombing of Dresden. A big part of the chapter is Billy’s reaction to the quartet singing. “Billy thought hard about the effect the quartet had on him, and then found an association with an experience he had had long ago.” (pg. 177) Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel that reflects how traumatized was Kurt by the war. Everything that is happening has a connection to the effect war had on him. The a description of the bombing and the people dying and what happens to him in war is not at all the point of the book. Kurt simply wants to show us how what is war, the consequences not the actual war. If what he wanted to do was write a book on everyday at war, with full description and tragedy memories, he would have done that. He didn’t.

Maybe Satire

While reading chapter Six, i was aware to find satire. I agree with you (Mr. Tangen), satire needs skill. To be able to write something that somebody else, stranger to you, understands the humor and sense of it or even laugh, takes talent.

“She asked Gluck if he wasn’t awfully young to be in the army. He admitted that he was.
She asked Edgar Derby if he wasn’t awfully old to be in the army. He said he was.
She asked Billy Pilgrim what he was supposed to be. Billy said he didn’t know. He was just trying to keep warm.” (pg 159)

The third time that the phrase “She asked” is repeated made me giggle and the fact that she asked what Billy was “supposed” to be made me laugh. Billy responds ironically, she does not ask him what he was doing but what he was supposed to be. That is funny too. Hyperbole is used with the word “awfully”, it is not very exaggerated but it gives a little too much emphasis. It is targeted to war, to the absurdity of the soldiers.

Many

I've done many things today. I am very tired because of doing many things. I had to read many words. I had many classes at school. I ate many strawberries this afternoon. I had many arguments today. I have many things to do. I appreciate many people, among them, Mr. Tangen. My eyes have closed many times while writing this. I am going to sleep, after many manys.

Wacked

There were 3 things that caught my mind.

1. Lazzaro killing a dog, and his conception of revenge.
2. Billy dying.
3. The Slaughterhouse-Five.

Starting by the third thing that caught my mind, I did not know what slaughterhouse ment: “–noun, plural -hous⋅es, A building or place where animals are butchered for food; abattoir.”(dictionary.com) It is quite a shocking description, having into consideration that “Now it was going to serve as a home away form home for one hundred American prisoners of war.” (pg. 152) Since it is the title of the book it makes it even more emphasized. This “home”, without a doubt had a lot of importance to Vonnegurt live as a soldier, besides the war itself. From my poor German, Schlacht means battle and hof means something like yard or playground. Literally Schlachthof means battlefield or battle yard. It gives a lot to say. So It Goes.

How come Billy dies? How could he die if it is himself that is writing the book. Unless he expects to die from a murder lead by Lazzaro, what happened confused me. “Vonnegut died on April 11, 2007, in Manhattan, following a fall at his Manhattan home several weeks earlier which resulted in irreversible brain injuries” (Wikipedia), he evidently didn’t die by being killed. Why would he write that Billy died? What effect was he expecting from the reader? In my case, I read the paragraph about three times to reassure that I was reading what was written. It made me think, analyze, Billy didn’t die, at least not in the book. “…, and it is time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again.” (pg. 143) In real life you can’t: Die and live again, travel through time, or be abducted by Tralfamadorians. Kurt was traumatized. So It Goes.


I cant believe someone can tell the story of how he killed a dog in the most torturous way I’ve ever heard and enjoy it. While I pictured the poor innocent dog eating the steak with blades inside and cutting all his insides I got goose bumps or horror. Lazzaro enjoyed it. “Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is-“said Lazzaro, “it’s revenge.” (pg. 139) I can’t agree less with him. Revenge is immature and evil. I do accept that id someone hurts you, you feel so mad at that person that you want him to feel the same. But to the point that you actually enjoy killing somebody because he/she bite you, or touched you, its insane. Lazzaro was insane. So It Goes.

Hyper Author

Here I am once again, absolutely exhausted, after a very long day and I am assigned to read Chapter 5 of Slaughterhouse-Five. I thought I would not take long, but it happened to be the longest chapter up till now. I finally finished it and realized that it was not only long, but very hard to keep up with. Kurt, or I should say, Billy, is a very hyper author. In 50 pages, he took me (as the reader) to more than 5 places with a transition of a sentence. “Moments after that, the saucer entered a time warp, and Billy was flung back into his childhood.” (Pg. 88) That is just an example of the whole chapter pattern. Why would Kurt need to jump around so much? Maybe he found it boring to be talking about the same topic for more that a page or two without variation. It is very paradox. This book should be a “pillar of salt”, a memorial of Kurt Vonnegut and his experience in the bombing of Dresden. We discussed in class the reason why Kurt adheres a science fiction tale (Tralfamadore) to a true-story base novel. I think that he himself was way to overwhelmed by his anecdotes that he wouldn’t write about it in such a dense way without any breaks, such as jumping around in time or inventing part of the book.

“He groped for the light, realized as he felt the rough walls that had traveled back to 1944, to the prison hospital again.” (pg. 123) Billy has, evidently, gone through a lot of situations. The mare situations make the novel mysterious because not all the situations are deeply of completely explained, just breezed through. It makes me eager to know more about the prison hospital and before I know it I am back to Billy’s honeymoon with “baby fat” Valencia. It is astonishing how Kurt remembers his history so very well detailed, he knew that the walls of the prison hospital were “rough” and that he was scared of falling of the Canyon and peed if his father touched him. But as the jumping around is for a reason, the details can be exaggerated or invented, and so on.

Dear Mr. Pilgim,

I suspect that you have serious mental issues. You are not pleased to stay at one topic at a time, or at one place at time. Your issues have gone so far that you have even made up stories about being kidnapped by Tralfamadorians. But I get it you have been through a lot and being in a war, as an American prisoner is not easy. IT is not easy either to be trapped in a boxcar for a very long time, were the conditions were like this: “It was black in the car and black outside the car, which seemed to be going about two miles an hour.” (pg. 77) and you had to take turns lying down or standing up, but in your case you could not liw down and sleep, because “You yell. You kick” (pg.78) I feel sorry for you. Also witnessing the death of one of your only “friends” in war, Roland Weary. And the death of the hobo, who was the one who encourage you not to complain because there were things far worse.

What really concerns me is that you do believe that the Tralfamadorians took you, How can you be so sure? Haven’t you considered the idea that you might have been affected by the fact that you were a prisoner for a long time in Germany? I think that’s the problem. You have been psychologically traumatized so much that you do think that Tralfamadore exists and you, in fact, have been kidnapped. I hope you realize that such things are not true, those kinds of stories are not possible. Nonetheless, I hope in our next meeting you tell me more about your time at Dresden as a prisoner and I might understand you better Mr. Pilgrim, I believe you have a very complex mind to figure out.

Sincerely,
Mariana Sanz de Santamaria

So It Still Goes

There is one thing about war that amazes me. It’s a fight against the same team. For a long time we have divided us into all kinds of races, nationalities, ethnics and a various of other sub groups and we don’t see or realize (or agnorisis) that we are all effectively the same, as the cliché constantly says. They are (we are) human beings fighting against human beings. I am not saying that wars have not a reason, they do and they are fought because we are driven into that in all kinds of ways, yet we are fighting each other. The same way we need to clean our planet and take care of it, by watching out for global warming, recycling, etc. It’s for humanity’s sake. Humanity’s sake also involves not killing each other, not diminishing each other, not disrespecting each other.

“Human beings in there were took turns standing or lying down. The legs of those who stood were like fence posts driven into a warm, squirming, farting, sighing earth.” (pg. 70) That’s infamy, and yet it’s nothing like what others have lived through. Some of the anecdotes of other’s suffering make me shiver, I don’t really like either reading descriptions of death not seeing them, and I feel as though my blood pressure drops. “There was another long silence, with the colonel dying and dying, drowning where he stood.” (pg. 66) I picture the colonel in agony, and I think to myself, he was just like me, a human.

So It Goes.

So It Goes

Chapter Three has been a very, very strange chapter. It jumped form time to time, to different issues, characters, situations and stories. As I understood Billy Pilgrim is the protagonist of Slaughterhouse Five, if I’m wrong he is just part of the story. The perfect description of the chapter is stated at the beginning of it “He has walked through a door in 1955 and come out another one in 1942. he has gone back through that door to find himself in 1963.” (pg 23)That’s exactly what happens in the chapter. Vonnegut connects one decade with the other without previous announcement, so a close attention is needed not to get lost while writing.

What definitely caught my attention about this chapter is the story of Tralfamadore. “He said that he had been kidnapped by the Tralfamadorians on the night of his daughter’s wedding. He hadn’t been missed, he said, because Tralfamadorians had taken him through a time warp, so that he could be on Tralfamadore for years, and still be away from Earth for only a microsecond.” (pg. 26) I read this quote about three times. I remembered Narnia, the Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe, how the four siblings could be in Narnia for years and come back to Earth like if no time had passed. What caught my attention was how off the topic this Tralfamadore “trip” from the Dresden war destruction account. It does make it a little less personal and less credible; it even makes it as it were science fiction.

“So it goes” The phrase had caught my eye since chapter one, I had underlined all the times that it was written because it was odd that many paragraphs ended with “so it goes.” I finally understood that it had to do with the mystery of Tralfamadore “Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes.’” (pg 27) The quote relates the science fiction of Tralfamadore with the life story of Billy in war, which is the main basis of the book: war. “So it goes” give me the sense of giving up, for me is similar to “whatever”, there is nothing you can do about it. He died, so what? So it goes.

Vonnegut's Flow

I do like the way Kurt Vonnegut writes. He has a flow and a voice that makes me feel like if I were listening to a fairy tale or a very long anecdote. I have never read a first chapter in which the author tell how he wrote the book, usually that’s the prologue or the introduction o the Author’s note, but no the first chapter of a novel. In a Clockwork Orange the part in which the author (Anthony Burgess) talks his own personal experience writing the book or after being published, “The book I wrote is divided into three sections of seven chapters each.” (Pg. x Clockwork Orange) Giving his opinion on the success of the book, the mistakes of the book, etc… yet, he does not write about it in a novel-type of voice, but more of a personal analysis. Kurt does. Its like if the writing of the book is part of the book.

“Even then I was supposedly writing a book about Dresden.” (pg. 10 Slaughterhouse Five) It did amaze me that the process of writing the book is part of the book. It makes total sense! How you write a book influences a lot on the book itself, and I agree with Vonnegut in incorporating all the process he had to go through to write the book. Starting with getting O’Hare in the phone because he would help him write the book, “We were captured together in the war. I told him who I was on the telephone. He had trouble believing it.” (pg. 4) And to how he got to the final publishing of the Book. The original name of the book was Children’s Crusades, “‘I tell you what,’ I said, ‘I’ll call it ‘The Children’s Crusade’’ She was my friend after that.” it ends up being Slaughterhouse Five.

The tone he uses makes the book an easy and fast writing to read. It is enjoyable. Vonnegut uses very short and simple sentences, therefore the book itself is not a brick (ladrillo) to read. I liked this quote because of the simple and yet concise word choice. “And I let the dog out, or I let him in, and we talk some. I let him know I like him, and he lets me know he likes me. He doesn’t mind the smell of mustard gas and roses.” (pg. 7) He personifies the “dog” by saying that they talk, nevertheless so I am not saying that people can’t talk with dogs (referring to communicating with them). He also uses the phrase “smell mustard gas and roses” from the breath of a drunk, which his wife dislikes, but his dog doesn’t!

As in the content of the book, meaning the destruction of Dresden and an anti-war book, I had no idea about Dresden massacre. I googled it and found out that it was totally destroyed by the Red Army of Germany between 1944 and 1945. An estimation of 150,000 to 250,000 deaths, no wonder someone like Vonnegut would like to write about it.

Se7en

Here is the link to the trailer of the movie Se7en, with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman. This movie mentions DAnte's Inferno and is based on the sins and the punishments for each sin. I think it is very interesting clip to share in class!

"You got what you deserved!" If You want to know more about this film click here

NOT To Do

I am not sure if Dante the character or Dante the author changed dramatically. Nonetheless, after writing (or living) through such a novel and series of events it is inevitable to change at least the perspective of life. It changed mine, so definitely must have changed Dante, the speaker. Probably to a better sense, learning and being conscious of what the consequences are of our actions.

Witnessing Lucifer and the ultimate punishment did affect Dante’s feelings and emotions, “If he was once as handsome as he now… is ugly and, despite that, raised his brows… against his Maker, one can understand… how every sorrow has its source in him!” (Canto XXXIV, 33-37). Dis was a very disturbing image, and Dante’s feelings are touched: “…how every sorrow has its source in him!” The statement proves that Dante has an emotion towards the image. Including the feeling he had when he entered the Nith Circle Fourth Ring, “deprived of life and death.” This hollowness inside himself might lead him to wonder to a better place after going through hell. He is full of bitterness and “within a shadowed forest,” (Canto I, 2) since the beginning of his journey and at the end he is even more so. If I were to keep on reading Dante’s inferno once he is out of hell, I would be reading how he applies his experience to Earth to then go to Heaven, because ultimately what Dante is doing is experimenting sorrow “…and all the rest whose minds bent toward the good,…do tell me where they are and let me meet them;…for my great longing drives me on to learn… if Heaven sweetens or Hell poisons the.” (Canto VI, 81-84) Dante, the character, wants to learn, his goal in hell is to reach his “great longing”.
Once he is out of hell, he would go to Earth, back to where he had lost his way and felt lost. But this time, he would not feel that lost, even though at the end of the novel he is described as feeling sad and deprived. He would know what he supposed NOT to do. Dante then goes through a journey of a series of challenges, and in order to successfully exceed them, he needs to apply what he learned in hell. Once he knows what NOT to do, he goes to Heaven and learns what to DO.

I Love

In Respeland, utopia is the reality the citizens live in.
Yet, it takes a lot of ability to maintain a society
by which today’s humanity would have never been
of much credibility.
The rules of my world consist of basic values
the ones we were taught, “do not be mean”
but to be perfect there are no clues.
I believe inhabitants must have no fear
to give and gift, for nothing in return other than
a kiss in the cheek or whisper in the ear.
For her to understand what whispered Jonathan
they need to speak with the same speech
and have the same principles
however no more than two children, each.
Too many people, causes’ cripples-
chaos, destruction and disorder.
Until now, the world is a place of multiples,
some love, some murder
I love
Do you?

Poetic Karma

Poetic justice is according to Wikipedia is the ironic outcome of a character’s conduct or fate. In Dante’s Inferno poetic justice is present in every single Circle or Ring of hell, either in a figurative way or more literal way. The sinners are being punished by the sin they committed. For example the traitors are kept covered by ice to feel the cold heart that their betrayed benefactors felt when they committed treason, as well to those who did not felt regret for what they did now cry eternally with frozen tears that seal their eyes, “Their very weeping there wont let them weep,…and grief that finds a barrier in their eyes… turns inward to increase their agony;…because their first tears freeze into a cluster,…and, like a crystal visor, fill up all… the hollow the is underneath the eyebrow.” (Canto XXXIII, 94-99) They did not weep for their sin, and now their weeping is agonizing and forever. Poetic Justice is somewhat like Karma, the actions that you do eventually turn back to you, either negative or positive. It is the irony of life, fate depends on your actions and most of the time it does not match the way it should be.

In Season 3 Episode 1 “Two” of The Twilight Zone, poetic justice is perceived as an unexpected turn of fate. The series originated in the 1980s as science fiction and abstract ideas. The episode plots a setting of an abandoned city where war had destroyed and left it isolated. There are two only characters. A woman comes first as a stranger in dark uniform to the zone, she does not know where she is and what she will find there, nevertheless she looks around for food and when she finds a can of chicken a man comes in, in a light uniform. The moment they see each other they fight desperately for the food and as enemies of different armies. He feels guilty, I am not sure what made him change his mind about her, but he gives her half of the chicken. Maybe he realized that the fact that they had different color of uniform would not do a difference in a deserted area. However, she does not give in so easily. Why so? It was not that she didn’t understand what he was saying, and she knew that he was kind enough to give her food. The women breaks in fear after seeing war propaganda posters, in which she was titled as the “enemy” because of her uniform and he was titled as a “hero”, so attacks him. Swiftly the day after she puts on the dress, (the one that he wanted her to put on) and they smile at each other as a loved couple would do. Even though hate and love are not necessarily antonyms, they are known to be opposite and it is paradoxical that the outcome of the episode is not that one of them kills the other, but that they fall in love. Therefore, it is Poetic Justice.

PrInCeSs-AnGeL

PrInCeSs:
HELLO! How are you?

AnGel93:
Heey!! I’m fine... How are you?

PrInCeSs:
I’m good! How was your day?

AnGel93:
Honestly, I’m really tired... How about you? Fun vacations?

PrInCeSs:
They were the best!

AnGel93:
Where did you go? I want to know all about it!

PrInCeSs:
I did a lot of things. The first couple of weeks I stayed in Bogota and hanged around with my friends, I went to parties and stuff, it was fun, u know? Then I went to a summer camp and it was THE BEST, I met soooo many people and I loved Guajira. Then I flew to Bogota and then to Cali.

How was your Vacation?

AnGel93:
Well sounds like you had a lot of fun! I had a lot of fun also, I also stayed in Bogota until beginnings of August when I flew to Miami. Then I went to Tampa and had so much fun in Busch Gardens! Amazing rides!

PrInCeSs:
OMG! You went to Bush Gardens?!
Tell me about it!

AnGel93:
Yeah! It was Awesome!!! There’s amazing rides. Very tall ones and fast ones, I rode on Sheikra that is a roller coaster 200 meters high and it has a fall of 90 degrees! Quite scary but I made it. Water rides, other tall roller coaster, fun but exhausting.

How about Guajira? I’ve never been there!

PrInCeSs:
You got on Sheikra? Last time I went there, I rode about 3 times its like THE BEST roller coaster in the world. Did you see the animals? Who was with you?

AnGel93:
Yep like 2 times! I went with my parents, (not boring at all) it’s obvious that with friends it’s like a thousand times better!

PrInCeSs:
Did your parents ride it too?! I CANT BELIEVE IT! Hahahahha, my parents would never do that. I went with my uncles that are like crazy, and my brother. :P

AnGel93:
Yes they did, but not all of them.

PrInCeSs:
I also went to Islands of Adventure that time. I want to go back

AnGel93:
Me too!! I want to go back soon. It’s so fun! :) I hate that Colombia doesn’t have that kind of entertainment for people.

PrInCeSs :
I know, it really sucks.
I didn’t finish telling you about Guajira!

AnGel93:
Tell me, tell me!


PrInCeSs:
Well, I met so many people, you can’t imagine. I spent a lot of time with the Staff because de kids were some too young. I met the HOTTEST guy on Earth

AnGel93:
OMG! How about that? What happened with him? Who is the mystery guy?

PrInCeSs:
He is amazing, so HOT! But he was a counselor so nothing could have happened.:(
Screwed.

AnGel93:
Damn! I’ve heard of hot counselors at camp. I met a counselor in Kajuyali of Lagartos. OMG he’s the hottest guy on earth! :) But oh well! If love is to come, it will come alone!

PrInCeSs:
Hahahahaha! I love that you tell me that

AnGel93:
It’s totally true. After all, I hate guys... They’re all the same.

PrInCeSs:
I know, they such jerks, Screw them ALL

AnGel93:
Totally
I need my prince charming
But when will he come? Hahahaha

PrInCeSs:
I think that’s overrated, it does not exist
Sorry disappointing you!

AnGel93:
Well you never know until it comes. Believe me, someday, I’ll feel like a princess! Having my prince charming.

PrInCeSs:
Hahahahhaha! Let’s keep on dreaming. Talking about that I’m kinda tired! See you tomorrow! ILY

AnGel93
ILY 2