“It was reduced to a square of planed wood: nothingness…” (pg 123)

As I continue to read Invisible Cities, I continue to find symbols of the world, or life itself. As I mentioned in my previous blog entries, I believe that the city of Venice is meant to represent not only Marco Polo’s hometown, it represents life itself, and all the cities described in the book are the different perceptions or opinions people with different outlook might have regarding it.

The mountain if trash in Letonia, “the city that refashions itself every day” (pg 114) represents all the memories we build up during our lifetimes. The fact that it takes one simple object to fall in order to make the mountains of rubbish crumbles signifies the precarious instability of life, and how we don’t know when or how our lives are going to change, whether it be for better or for worse.  

The game of chess described by Calvino as representing each city is not only that, it is also an allegory for all the decisions we might have to take; how we may win or lose those things that are important to us, but if we lose that one value or principle that makes us different from everyone else around us, we lose the game of life.

“Each game ends in a gain or a loss: but of what?” (pg 123). I can interpret this quote in two ways. One can see it as those risks we chose to take in life and the way we are rewarded for each, or one can interpret it by saying that each game here represents knowledge, and the question at the end is actually asking what the real importance of knowledge is. Why bother reading this complex book? To understand life better, but what will that give us? We will all end up dying eventually so what is the point?

This makes me question if Calvino, after all the analysis he made upon society and its ways, actually has a negative view on life, just like the one expressed by Shakespeare in Macbeth. 

“…So then, yours is truly a journey through memory!” (pg 98)

How do you read a book? Is there really a right way and a wrong way to do so? Every author has a purpose whenever they set out to write something. Whether the purpose is to entertain readers by talking about fascinating fictional beings, inform the audience about facts and theories, or explain the meaning of life, they have all been written with a specific purpose in mind.

As soon as you start reading Invisible Cities, you, as a reader, take on the arduous task of trying to figure out what Italo Calvino really wants to convey through his cities. What you don’t realize at first is that Calvino wrote the book in such a way that as the book progresses, he too is figuring out his audience.

“Each place in the carpet corresponds to a place in the city and all the things contained in the city are included in the design, arranged according to their true relationship.”(pg. 96). By stating that the carpet is a map of the city, Calvino is not only saying that Marco Polo’s tales all talk about Venice, he is comparing Venice to the common thread that ties everything together, and is presenting his book as a map of life itself.

Just like Virgil guided Dante through the depths of Hell; Tralfamadorian theory guided the life of Billy Pilgrim; Vladek guided the life of his son, justice guided the fates of Claitemnestra, Agamemnon, Electra, and Orestes; freedom guided the life of Eli Wiesel; an unjust world guided Candide through his journey; the meaning of nothing guided Macbeth through his; and selfishness guided Dawkins’ work and beliefs; Calvino uses Invisible Cities to guide us through life. 

Define: Life

“No one, wise Kublai, knows better than you that the city must never be confused with the words that describe it.” (pg 61)

Amethyst: a purple or violet quartz, used as a gem.

Hypochondria: excessive worry or talk about one's health.

Balustrades: a railing with supporting balusters.

Cedar: any of several Old World, coniferous trees of the genus Cedrus, having wide, spreading branches.

Filigree: delicate ornamental work of fine silver, gold, or other metal wires, especially lacy jewelers' work of scrolls andarabesques.

Mullioned: a vertical member, as of stone or wood, between the lights of a window, the panels in wainscoting, or the like.

Raffia: a fiber obtained from the leaves of the raffia palm, used for tying plants and other objects and for making mats, baskets, hats, andthe like.

Mandrel: a shaft or bar the end of which is inserted into a workpiece to hold it during machining.

Lathe: a machine for use in working wood, metal, etc., that holds the material and rotates it about a horizontal axis against atool that shapes it.

Sojourn: a temporary stay

Pediments: (in classical architecture) a low gable, typically triangular with a horizontal cornice and raking cornices, surmounting acolonnade, an end wall, or a major division of a façade.

Punctilious: strict or exact in the observance of the formalities or amenities of conduct or actions.

Zebus: one of a domesticated form of cattle, Bos taurus indicus, of India,having a large hump over the shoulders and a large dewlap.

Spire: a tall, acutely pointed pyramidal roof or rooflike constructionupon a tower, roof, etc.

Hempen: of, like, or pertaining to hemp.

Hemp: a tall, coarse plant,Cannabis sativa, that is native to Asia but naturalized or cultivated in many parts of the world and is the source of avaluable fiber as well as drugs such as marijuana and hashish.

Consign: to hand over or deliver formally or officially; commit (often followed by to ).

Wastrel: a wasteful person; spendthrift.

Sponger: a person who habitually borrows or lives at the expense of others; parasite.

Denouement: the final resolution of the intricacies of a plot, as of a drama or novel.

Role-Play

When you pick up the book Invisible Cities for the second time, you expect to finally start understanding what the author is really getting at. This section, however, starts with an “imaginary” conversation between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan, where one assumes what the other is asking and imagines a response according to that. This shows the relationship between Calvino and the reader. Since Calvino couldn’t possibly meet all of his readers and answer their questions, he was forced to imagine what questions the book would arouse, and attempt to answer them as best as he can.

If we think about it from a Shakespearean point of view, there is really no need for these questions because life means nothing, so what you chose to do with it shouldn’t matter either. Calvino states that it is pointless trying to decide whether Zenobia is to be classified among happy cities or among the unhappy” (pg 35.) What one should be asking him or herself is what makes a city happy? And at the same time, what makes a person happy? However, if we look upon the story in the same way Shakespeare viewed Macbeth and his story, this wouldn’t hold any importance, because life is meaningless after all.

As you continue to read, you become more identified with Kublai Khan’s feelings and questions regarding the city, and the more you read the more you realize you are Kublai Khan, and Calvino is Marco Polo, trying to explain the complexities of humankind to an idle audience. “Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives deceitful and everything stands for something else.” (pg 44)

Why paint something when you can describe it just as effectively?

After having started to read Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities, my way of approaching literature and works of art has changed completely. Painters believe that art is a way of viewing human condition in a different way. Musicians believe that tunes and melodies are able to convey things that cannot be expressed through words. Writers believe that literature reflects the human condition, as well as society’s hopes and dreams.

In this book, Calvino uses a technique much like the one employed by Hemmingway, where they both start their works by jumping straight into the action without introducing the setting, characters, or giving a reader any sort of clue as to what the story is about. As a reader, you are left to look over the writing for any type of clues that will help you understand what is really going on and start getting a clear image of the events that are taking place.

However, this book goes beyond that. Not only do you have to draw conclusions from the limited descriptions offered by Marco Polo to Kublai Khan of each city he visited, you also get the hard task of deciding in what order you wish to start reading the book. There is a reason why Calvino chose to place the chapters in their respective order, but there was also a reason why he named some of the chapters the same, and why he placed specific numbers next to them as well.

This book can not only be read in many different ways, but it can be interpreted in various forms as well. Calvino describes his cities in such a way that the reader is able to imagine a part of it, making the experience of reading this particular book a completely different one for every person who reads it. 

“All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.”

I had never thought about animals having their own culture, but this chapter in The Selfish Gene made me realize how true that was. Dawkins starts talking about animal culture, and then proceeds to talk about genes and evolution in human for almost the first time since the start of the book. However, he gives the chapter a completely different approach than the one I expected by mentioning what he names memes. According to the dictionary, memes are “cultural items are transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.”

He exemplifies his point by stating that “God exists, if only n the form of a meme with high survival value, or ineffective power, ion the environment provided by human culture.” (pg 193.) Although highly controversial, this statement is completely true. There is no evidence at all that confirms the existence of a being such as “God”, he exists merely in people’s faith, which according to Dawkins I “blind trust, in absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence… Blind faith can justify anything.” (pg 198.) Who can tell you you’re wrong when you don’t need anything to confirm that you are right? I respect people that have such strong convictions, but I cannot personally relate. How can you believe in something you don’t know exists? How can you blindly trust some old papers that were written by people that would probably be considered insane in our modern world?

Dawkins ends the chapter by saying that our genes are survival machines, yet they were not created to be, nor can we expect them to be, immortal. They are bound to change because of the nature of evolution itself, but memes, on the other hand, can last for a longer time. They will not be exactly the same, since everyone changes ideas to fit certain circumstances and to fit their own understanding, but their essence will remain. Can we consider, then, that our ideas are more important than our bodies?

A Matter of Time

After reading several of the chapters from The Selfish Gene, I am not completely certain if I have learned a lot or am simply confused by the enormous amount of information, definitions, examples, and conclusions that Dawkins draws throughout the book. It seems as if sometimes, by trying to enhance his point he goes a little overboard using allegories in order to make the reader understand and ends up doing exactly the opposite.

In chapter ten, he addresses social insects, such as bee, wasps, ants, and termites that rely on cooperation and apparent altruism for the survival of their species. The individuality of these social insects is subjugated to the welfare of the community as a whole, not to their individual benefit. He went into great detail talking about how this works with bees, and how this is possible because most males have no father. They all have only half the number of genes and all of them come from their mother. It is weird to write about this in Mother's Day, seeing as those sterile male bees owe their entire existence to their mother.

Dawkins also mentions mutualism and symbiosis, the relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species. He states that the mitochondria in our cells were probably separate species from us a long time ago, but we became so dependent on each other that we evolved into the same organism, and if we were to eliminate all the mitochondria in our bodies, we would be dead within seconds. I find this type of dependency amazing, but a little contradictory to the whole “selfish gene” idea. 

Processing...

As I read chapter four, I noticed the increased use of examples by Dawkins in his attempts to illuminate the reader, yet I found that he lacked explanation on certain aspects which he implies without giving us a reason or telling us why he did so. After spending such an exhaustive amount of parallels, you can assume that his goal is to make his writing clear, so his elusive statements disconcerted me.

                

Dawkins states that modern survival machines have “evolved a property we call ‘consciousness’,” and then states that computers are designed beforehand to behave “as if motivated by a purpose” (which drives our consciousness). However, computers are able to predict possible outcomes, often times better than we can ourselves. How have human beings been able to instill such a remarkable property on inanimate objects? I believe that what I am truly asking is how and why computers “think” and although I realize that technology is not Dawkins’ forte, this specific example confused me a great deal.  

Outrageous?

The Selfish Gene, a book by Richard Dawkins, is a very interesting creation. I would never think that so many people would be interested in reading about biology, but then again I never imagined biology could be explained in this way. It is easy to tell that Dawkins knows what e is talking about, yet he addresses his knowledge in such a casual way that he makes it easy for the reader to understand the points he makes.

However, as simple as his book may seem for him to understand, he creates so many analogies, parallels and examples that if you are not paying close attention to his every word, it is easy to get lost andf have to backtrack in order to fully understand. As I was reading, I found a particular part of chapter three very interesting, as it was one of his attempts to explain why people before lived longer than they did today. He then expresses possible ways to expand the human life span, and says we should ban reproduction before the age of forty or fifty to avoid the passing down of lethal genes that kill before that age. As I read this, I remembered a satirical essay by Jonathan Swift that we had read in class a little while ago, A Modest Proposal. Here, Swift suggests that poor Irish people could ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for the people of the upper classes. Although this seems a little more radical, both statements propose outrageous ideas that go against liberties established in our modern society.  

Passive sentences

1.    These bottles cannot be easily opened by children.

2.     A road was built right outside her front door.

3.     The Antique base was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store

4.     She was amazed by the changes when she arrived.

5.     Street repairs were being made by construction workers all month long.

6.     His retirement will be celebrated at the party.

7.     His oral exam was being discussed right in front of him.

8.     All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.

9.     The hull of the ship was damaged by corrosion.

While I was there, the old homestead was visited by some children

Macbeth Act 3 Scene 6 (pg. 113-115)

Summary: In Scotland, Lennox and a lord start talking about how weird it is that Duncan is killed and his two runaway sons are blamed, and how later the same thing happens with Banquo. People are starting to suspect of Macbeth, seeing as he was the one that had the most to win. They state that Macduff joined Malcolm, and both of them are currently talking with King Edward to try and convince him to fight for their cause.

People finally realized how much Macbeth had won from these two murders, and suspicions slowly started to emerge. The fair amount of coincidences between both cases was a dead giveaway, yet the events of this scene inform us of the oncoming war.

“Men must not walk too late.” –Lennox (pg. 113)

“But peace. For from broad words, and ‘cause he failed his presence at tyrant’s feast.” –Lennox (pg. 115)

Macbeth Act 4 Scene 5 (pg. 111-113)

Summary: The witches meet and are joined by Hecate, the goddess of witches. Hecate is angry because the sisters meddled with Macbeth without consulting her first. She states that his previous actions were done for his own purposes, not for them. She tells them to meet Macbeth in the morning, where he would learn his fate.

There is a lot of word play in Hecate’s monologue. Apart from the fact that it follows a rhyme scheme, she uses several metaphors and alliterations, probably to not only reiterate her power and control over the witches but to persuade them to follow her plan and allow her to deal with Macbeth in her own way.

“Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do, loves for his own ends, not for you.” –Hecate (pg. 111)

“Upon the corner of the moon there hangs a vap’rous drop profound. I’ll catch it ere it come to ground, and that… shall raise such artificial sprites as by the strength of their illusion.” –Hecate (pg. 111)

Macbeth Act 3 Scene 4 (pg. 99-109)

Summary: At the start of the banquet, the first murderer walks in and tells Macbeth about Banquo’s death and Fleance’s escape. Banquo’s ghost suddenly appears, sending him into a horror fit. No one else can see the ghost, so Lady Macbeth brushes it off. However when the ghost reappears, she can no longer pretend nothing is wrong with the upset Macbeth. She calls an end to the banquet and everyone but her and her husband leave. Macbeth decides to have another meeting with the witches, yet expresses his uncertainty about what the future holds.

Lady Macbeth: My husband has lost it! I knew he was a coward, but I didn’t understand just how far his lack of courage went. He has become insane! The guilt of killing Duncan is consuming him slowly, and it has now caused him to lose his mind. I hope the witches can talk some sense into him tomorrow. For the time being I leave matters in their hands, there’s only so much a woman can do!

“His absence, sir, lays blame upon his promise.” –Ross (pg. 101)

“It will have blood, they say; blood will have blood. Stones have been known to move, and trees to speak;” – Macbeth (pg. 109)

Macbeth Act 3 Scene 3 (pg. 95-97)

Summary: The two murderers sent by Macbeth are joined by a third one, who claims to have been sent by Macbeth. Banquo and Fleance come nearer. The murderers attack and succeed in killing Banquo, without him first telling his son to take revenge for his murder. Fleance escapes in a moment of darkness. The murderers go back to the castle to report the events.

I find it interesting how Banquo’s dying wish is for his son to seek revenge over his death. One would imagine that more important things are going through your mind seconds before perishing, but this was not the case. By this turn of events, the reader can predict that Fleance will be the one that goes after Macbeth, knowing that he could actually beat him and take his throne and power, so kindly given to him by the deeds of the Weïrd sisters.

“Then stand with us. – the west yet glimmers with some streaks of day.” –First Murderer (pg. 97)

“Thou mayst revenge – o slave!” –Banquo (pg. 97)

Macbeth Act 3 Scene 2 (pg. 91-95)

Summary: Lady Macbeth talks to her husband and tells him to stop being so gloomy, that he cant change the past and should therefore stop dwelling on gloomy thoughts. Macbeth informs her that Banquo won’t be at the banquet , but doesn’t tell her about the murder.

Although it is not completely useless, this scene is of little importance compared to the other ones. All we find out is that Lady Macbeth knows nothing about Banquo’s murder. This might be form of foreshadowing or may even hold a hidden meaning, but considering where I am in the book, that much could be said in another scene.

“’Tis safer to be that which we destroy than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.” –Lady Macbeth (pg. 91)

“better to be with the dead, whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace, than on the torture of the mind to lie in restless ecstasy.” –Macbeth (pg. 93)

Destiny?

As I reached the end of Candide, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. Surely a tragedy, something so horrifying that it would surely give me nightmares and cause me to question the nature of mankind, or a utopian ending, with everything ending perfectly and all the characters living happily ever after, or even no ending at all; for him to simply leave the reader hanging in the middle of the narrative for the alleged freedom that gives the reader to finish the story in their own way. I was prepared for any type of ending Voltaire decided to throw upon the reader, that is, anything but what he actually did.

The ending of the book, as unexpected as it was, didn’t cause me to question religion, war, money, morality, philosophy, or even optimism. On the other hand, it did cause be to question destiny and Pangloss’ theory regarding it. Although most of the events that happened at the end gave Candide what he had been searching for throughout the entire novel, they weren’t particularly what he had asked for. Had everything he had previously done led to this “best of all possible worlds”? Could this even be considered as such?

Although I am not thrilled with the ending the book had, I am not completely disappointed. Voltaire managed to surprise his readers one last time, and in doing so sparked revolutionary thoughts in his audience. The point he got across is that if we want something to change, we can’t just expect to sit back and allow others to do all the work, because things won’t end up the way you hoped they would. If you want change you must take matters into your own hands and fight for what you want in order to create your own perfect world.

More than Words

Seeing as Candide is a satirical novel, the writing style used by Voltaire is of great importance. The way he wrote the book gives this work just as much meaning as the content of the book itself. Knowledge of the time period is necessary in order to fully understand all of Voltaire’s jokes, many of which, I am sure, went straight over my head.

Voltaire’s subtle references give the book a more ironic tone, and make his criticism more notorious. However, these judgmental assessments are present in the form of his writing as well, making fun of cultures by giving some of his characters long names or describing the characters with long job titles which are meant to describe how “important” their roles are in the story, when he is actually criticizing society at the time for giving big names to people that don’t do or say anything productive.

The way he plays with the narrator’s point of view is also interesting, since most of the story is told in a third person viewpoint, but the reader often sees events through the eyes of Candide. Whether we are meant to sympathize or feel identified by him eludes me, but I do believe that he is meant as an impersonation of common men, and his actions and thoughts represent those which are had by most of society.

Practice What You Preach

Shortly after arriving in Eldorado, Candide and Cacambo come across young school children playing with gold nuggets, emeralds, and rubies in the road. Upon seeing this Candide remarks, “The children of the Kings of this country must be well brought up, if they are taught to despise gold and precious stones.”(p.75) He marvels at their righteousness and how unmaterialistic they are. From a young age they have been taught to loathe items that have brought about many greed driven conflicts among humanity. However, just as he praises this admirable quality he and Cacambo quickly “pick up the gold, emeralds, and rubies.”(p.75)

Here Candide fails to “practice what he preaches.” He approves of the children’s attitude toward the riches, yet double crosses himself by immediately turning around to pick them up for his own benefit.

This is called hypocrisy. People tend to do this much too often. They claim to believe in one thing, in this case not being avaricious, yet mere seconds later they completely turn their back on this and greedily hoard the goods in front of them.

Candide also demonstrates his hypocritical side when he compliments the country of Eldorado. He says, ”What country can this be?...It must be unknown to the rest of the world, because everything is so different from what we are used to. It is probably the country where all goes well.”(p.77) From this excerpt it is evident that Candide admires Eldorado and its ways. Yet, soon after he decides to leave and return to Europe. He contradicts himself by first saying that this must be, “the best of all possible worlds.” (p.20), then later expressing his desire to leave. Candide had struggled to find this best of all possible worlds and when he finally arrives, he wants to return to the land of hardships and troubles. He’s hypocritical in the way that he can never make a concrete statement. He is constantly doing the opposite of what he claims to believe. It all comes down to “practicing what you preach”, something Candide seems completely incapable of doing time after time.

Treatment According to Status

"Having heard the old woman´s story, the lovely Cunégonde began to pay her all the respect due to a person of her rank and quality."(pg. 58)

After Cunégonde learned that the old woman had been a princess, she concluded that she now deserved reverence. When the old woman was only a lowly servant she was completely worthless, yet since she proved to be,“the daughter of Pope Urban X and Princess of Palestrina.”(pg. 49) it clearly made her noble and important. On Cunégonde’s part it is extremely lovelyto have recognized this. The average person would have simply overlooked this increase in status since after all, she was no longer a princess. If people are below you on the social ladder, then you are almost expected to treat them like scum. However, if they are of equal or greater importance,you must treat them accordingly. What kind of shamefulflawed logic is this?

In reality, this is a cruel conclusion to make. Cunégonde should have been addressing the old woman with respect all along, regardless of her position in society. People are all equal and social classes shouldn’t separate them from receiving the same treatment. The way the excerpt implies Cunégonde’s selflessness at recognizing the old woman’s increase in status only makes matters worse. How in the world can someone be acclaimed as “lovely” for recognizing that a fellow human being deserves respect?

The worst part is that this kind of “treatment according to status” is practiced throughout society. Many people who have maids or drivers treat them disrespectfully, claiming that “they work for me”. Yet then they turn to an acclaimed equal, such as a friend, and their tone of contempt immediately vanishes.

In the society we live in, this is so common that many people don’t even notice it. However, it happens constantly. The same people whom if asked would agree with the idea that all men are created equal, fail to put this into practice and instead turn to the shameful business of “treatment according to status”.

A Peculiar Monarch

Throughout the story, the character that provides us with the most insight regarding Voltaire and his views of the world is Pangloss. Sometimes literally, but more often through satire, we learn who Voltaire was and what he believed in through the words of this “wise” character.

“For it is impossible for things not to be where they are, because everything is for the best.” (pg 35).

This particular teaching made by Pangloss relates to the very beginning of the book, where this extraordinary teacher claims “It is proved…that things cannot be other than they are, for since everything was made for a purpose, it follows that everything was made for the best purpose.” (pg. 20).

Pangloss’ reasoning constitutes that everything that exists does so because that was the way it was meant to be. This connects to the book by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, where in one of his journeys, the Prince encounters an absolute monarch. This character rules over everything, yet he commands them to do what they are meant to do, which defeats the purpose. He has the power because all of his subjects obey him, since none of his orders can be disobeyed.

Both Pangloss and the King share the same reasoning, which as a matter of fact makes no sense. If one were to follow their train of thought, nothing would ever be done and humanity would be at a loss. We cannot wonder through life without doing anything, arguing that things are always the way they are meant to be. If everyone thought like they did, the human race would be at a standstill and progress would be impossible.

By criticizing this, Voltaire is stating that people need to change in order to succeed and move forward, and this is what the French Revolution, despite its many hardships, finally accomplished.

Practice What You Preach

Voltaire, being one of the most influential philosophers in the Enlightenment, and a predecessor of the French Revolution, was bound to include some of the reality his country was facing at the time Candide was written. Although the setting of the novel doesn’t relate perfectly to Voltaire’s reality, the main issues regarding society are still present.

“’Men,’ he said, ‘must have somewhat altered the course of nature; for they were not born wolves, yet they have become wolves. God did not give them twenty-four-pounders or bayonets, yet they have made themselves bayonets and guns to destroy each other.” (pg 31).

Through Pangloss’ speech, Voltaire voices his concern over mankind and what it has turned out to be. Although he did believe in God, he didn’t believe in the God of the Bible, or any other being in sacred texts. By comparing men to wolves, he not only reduced human kind to being mere animals, he also implies that we are beings that cannot control our instincts, and have no notion of right and wrong, and are therefore unable to take the correct decisions to benefit ourselves and others.

He says that we have evolved in a way that is harmful towards us and the environment around us. However, this entails that we once had a choice. We had the possibility of turning out well and taking the correct decisions, yet we failed and the wrong turns we took determine where we stand today.

This strong critique towards society and war has a deep meaning, especially considering who wrote it and the role he had in French independence. His revolutionary ideas led the country towards war, and although the nation gained its freedom, it also lost a lot of people, ideas and culture along the way.

Aren't Morals Enough?

Throughout the history of mankind, war has been a constant factor that never fails to show up, even over the slightest differences. Even before any form of civilization came along, wars were being used to settle all types of disputes, including those fought over land or food. As time went by, wars became more and more vicious, and as technology advanced, so did these massacres.

In the early stages of mankind, things such as laws and governments didn’t exist, and society was free to do as it wished, even if that included harming others. Several hundred years ago, men started to develop certain rules and regulations that would control the general public, with the excuse of protecting people’s rights and fighting for the wellbeing of society. Thus came the creation of a certain code of conduct, some limitations as to what was and wasn’t legal during times of war.

“It was no more than a smoking ruin, for the Bulgars had burned it to the ground in accordance with the terms of international law.” (pg. 25).

Voltaire’s use of satire in describing the war is remarkable because although he describes it as something beautiful and attractive, one can tell how strongly opposed to it he was. This is exemplified when Candide has just witnessed the “beauty and brilliance” (pg. 25) of war, and decided to go to the village of Abar, where he wanted to take some time to think about the horrors he had observed. He says that the “bugles, fifes, oboes, drums, and salvoes of artillery produced such a harmony as Hell itself could not rival.” (pg 25). The shrewd demonstrations of violence that can be perceived during times of war are so atrocious that they don’t even compare to what happens in the depths of Hell itself.

How is it logical that things such as war laws exist? I find it hard to decide whether I am glad they do because they spare at least some part of our humanity, or to be completely horrified to think that they are even necessary. Are human beings so vile that they need an entity to tell them that killing innocent civilians is wrong? How can there even be laws in scenarios where torture and murder are the main objectives? Is there really no end to our malice?

SOPA Op-Ed Video

Yvette Abadi, Gabriela Aldana SOPA Op-Ed Video