False?

 “Falsehood is never in words; it is in things.” (pg. 62)

The fourth section of Invisible Cities talks about perspective. Every city in the section is seen differently depending on the beholder, or the way one looks at it, or the way it is described.

Olivia is the perfect example of how a city can change depending on its description. Marco Polo explains how in the case of this city, you describe the aspects of the city you want others to see, leaving out the obvious downsides. “If I describe to you Olivia, a city rich in products and profits, I can indicate its prosperity only by speaking of filigree palaces with fringed cushions in the seats by the mullioned windows… But from these words you realize at once how Olivia is shrouded in a cloud of soot and grease that sticks to the houses…” (pg.61) Much like any work of literature, Olivia can be described but not fully explained by a single person, because each reader will describe what he wants the next to see or only what he understood, even though the true meaning hidden in the book can be completely different.

“It is the mood of the beholder which gives the city of Zemrude its form” (pg. 66) This city, shows how every single person that reads a book, or lives a specific situation, may see it differently depending on his mood, the things that happened before that event, or the books he read before. The example Calvino gives for this city in order to explain it properly is very simple, yet effective. If you travel the city whistling, tilting you head back, it is inevitable that you see only the high areas of the city, the sunlit buildings and windows. If you walk hunched, with your hands in your pockets, and looking at the floor, you will see the sewers, the dark and less prosperous areas of the city. In reality, this city comes to show how there are two sides to everything, and what is seen depends on the beholder.

“..Aglaura imprisons your words and obliges you to repeat rather than say.” (pg. 68)

The city of Aglaura focuses is a city which is seen the same way by all its inhabitants. They have become so accustomed to its grandeur, that it no longer seems impressive. Furthermore, the inhabitants have stopped noticing the change and growth of their city, they just repeat what the previous inhabitants said about the city, causing any change in the metropolis to go by unnoticed. This phenomenon happens daily in reality. We have grown so used to seeing poor people working at the stop-lights, that it has ceased to affects us like it probably affected the first people to see them. It has become a common occurrence.  What's more, the excerpt on this city which is mentioned above, could also relate to the phenomenon which takes place in our heads every time we read a new good book. The author has stressed that as we near the ending of the book we will become “an emblem among emblems” (pg. 23) This means that we will become a part of the book, and the book will become a part of us. Every work of literature forces us to repeat rather than say. Not literally of course, we are never forced to agree with a book or begin to live by it, yet, if we like it, we invariably do.

As I continue reading the book, I have no way to know what the cities that come next will represent. I can’t even know what they will look like or what they will say. Still, I find myself trying to make predictions, or even trying to imagine what Calvino would like to write next. I have no way of predicting this, and there is no way to get it right, “’And yet I have constructed in my mind a model city from which all possible cities can be deduced…’” (pg. 69)

"You advance always with your head turned back?"

“Futures not achieved are only branches of the past: dead branches” (pg.29)

The past, and a future not lived, are ultimately the same thing, because neither of them can be recovered. As he opens the second section of Invisible Cities, Calvino seems to emphasize on the past, and all the different types of futures we could have.  At the end of the introduction to the section, the Kahn asks a question which can be formulated in two very specific ways: “Journeys to relive your past?” or “Journeys to recover your future?” (pg. 29) This question, or questions, alone portray the importance of past and future in this section of the book, which later moves on to explain cities overflowing with unfulfilled futures and past decisions.

“…through what it has become, one can look back with nostalgia at what it was.” (pg. 30) The city of Maurilla is one that changed from small town to metropolis, slowly gaining strength and power, but losing most of its grace. The previously mentioned excerpt, which is used to describe this city, can tie in perfectly with the idea of growing up. As a person changes from kid to adult, most of the personality, looks, and beliefs change as well, making the grown-up just a shadow of the kid he was. However, the loss of the child is bitter-sweet, as it is with the city of Maurilla, because it allows us to look back at what we once were, but still embrace what we have become.  The past is key in this city, it is a city of Memory, it looks back on the past while still moving forwards, just as we are forced to do every day.

The city of Fedora however, is more interesting than most I this chapter. It is the city of unfulfilled futures:  it is everything we want to be, brutally contrasted with what we actually are. Within every small glass orb in the city, lies a diagram of what the city could have been, but never became. The author explains that the city could never become anything those diagrams portrayed because as they were being invented, the city was already changing, making it impossible to create the perfect model.  Much like Fedora, as we grow, we constantly try to create a perfect version of ourselves. But as we create that version, we are changing, making the model inadequate the minute it is created.  This happens as well in literature. A book may be completely planned out before the author even begins to write, however, as soon as the author begins to write, his train of thought changes, rendering the plan useless. Furthermore, books also change every minute, a path not taken can alter the ending of a book as a missed chance can alter our future. Thus the parallelism between life and literature continues.

Zenobia is the city of forgotten desires. “…those that through the years and the changes continue to give their form to desires, and those in which desires either erase the city or are erased by it.” (pg. 35) This classification of cities contributes to the relationship between life and literature in the story, as everything in the chapter can refer to either of the two. The first category, shows the typical ideal of growing up, in which what we want remains the same as we grow older and is ultimately achieved. It can also be interpreted as a book that was written according to the author’s original plan, something that doesn’t change. The second category is more realistic. It is the group in which most of us will eventually fall. It is that scenario in which what we want is erased by who we are, or vice versa. In a book, this is one that changes as it is written. One in which the story evolves until the meaning is erased by the plot, or the plot disregarded for the meaning.

We advance looking backwards, because it is the only place we've got to look. We analyze the past and figure out the roads not taken, but in the end there is nothing we can do to change it. All we do is understand what we didn't before, and then regret not understanding sooner. 

As we continue to read the book, Calvino’s words seem to be as vague as ever. Even though I have begun to understand what the meaning of the story is, as the author promised in the closing of the first section, it is not completely clear and some cities still escape my grasp. However I believe the book is meant to be understood gradually until the reader reaches a point in which he seems to be reading Calvino’s mind instead of his words.

“… in their conversations, most of the time, they remained silent and immobile.” (pg. 39) 

Bookception

It has been stressed this year that literature has no point, it doesn’t really mean anything. Literature just is. If this is true, why is it that we find ourselves constantly looking for meaning within the pages of a book? Every piece of literature we read defines us, changes us. Every time we finish a particularly mind-blowing piece of literature, we unconsciously begin to live by what the author stated, forgetting immediately that there was no point at all to the narrative.

Life has been explained in many ways through the ages. Philosophers try to understand life, never getting anywhere, probably because there is nothing to understand. Life, like literature, just is. We live, we breed, we die. What was the point? What was the meaning? Probably it was absolutely nothing. This is why literature is the one subject which comes so close to life, it is the one subject which really understands life, because it is just as pointless.  

The brilliance of Invisible Cities is that it can be used as an allegory to life, or to literature, making them seem like they are the same thing.

“The new fact received a meaning from that emblem and also added to the emblem a new meaning.” (pg.22)

The previous excerpt from the book tells us how we will begin to understand previous pieces of the narrative and at the same time could hold an important truth on life.

In terms of literature, the phrase above is explaining how, in later chapters of the book, we will come to understand the details we have read thus far, and see them in a different way as we continue reading. In terms of life, the same meaning can be applied. As we grow older, we will learn new things and have new experiences, which will add meaning to what we have lived before and put it all in a different perspective.

As far as I know, every city in the book is mainly a small piece of our “empire”, or our world. In the book, the author is telling us about our world as he tells us about the book we are reading. I guess bookception is an accurate description for it all? 

Hosts

The Host by Stephenie Meyer creates a society in which aliens in the shape of small, shining, gel-like creatures are taking over the world. These aliens can live for millions of years, as long as they have bodies to carry them around. See, the aliens by themselves are incredibly weak creatures, brilliantly smart, but physically weak. In order to survive, they are inserted into a human’s body through a small cut in the back of the neck. Once inside the body, they take control of the brain and ultimately live as themselves with a puppet that helps them survive. In the book humans are survival machines for the aliens, much like we are in real life for the genes.

“When we have served our purpose we are cast aside.” (pg. 35) This belief is depressing on many levels. Firstly it takes out all meaning in our silly lives, which aren’t really that grand to start with. In just one phrase Dawkins manages to turn a human being into an object, which can be easily cast off at the first sign of trouble. Secondly, it steals all hope for a better existence, seeing as our purpose is nothing more than full housing service for millions of genes. Thirdly: if this is true of our lives, if it really is as Shakespeare put it “a tale told by an idiot…signifying nothing,” (Macbeth, Act V, scene v), then why is it that we consider ourselves so important?

That is the main weakness of humanity: we like to fool ourselves into believing we are more important than we actually are.  We love to think that the world will change, that something will be altered when we die. The truth is we aren’t that special. In our lives, we may be capable of making a few people smile, hopefully we will have the chance to help some people or to leave a mark on them, but in the end we all walk towards the same door. “In a few generations the most you can hope for is a large number of descendants, each of whom bares only a tiny portion of you- a few genes- even if a few do bear your surname as well.” (pg. 35)

This idea brings me back to The Host, mainly because the meaning of life is also questioned in the book. The way the humans in the book see it, there’s no reason to live if you aren’t controlling yourself, if you mean nothing. The rebellious humans that still remain hidden on earth have various strategies to kill themselves before becoming a host, or as Dawkins would put it: a survival machine.

If we really are merely survival machines for our genes, what do we mean? Do we mean anything at all? Should we still have hope for a better society if The Selfish Gene is managing us? What if we are no more than hosts?

“We should have been wiser; we should have died yesterday” (Stephenie Meyer, The Host) 

The Beauty of Choice

“They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines. ” Pg.20

Philosophers exist on earth to answer two main questions: Why are we living? What is our purpose on earth? Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene manages to answer both those questions in just one chapter. Obviously it must be acknowledged that the answers to these questions may vary depending on the way they are studied. In this book’s particular case, they are examined from a scientific point of view, which is exponentially easier to figure out. According to Dawkins we are here solely because the replicators, commonly known as genes, need survival machines. Our purpose is to carry said genes through our life time and pass them on before dying, in order for them to continue living.

This point of view on the meaning of existence seems unsatisfying, especially when philosophers have tried to find a deeper meaning since ancient Greek times. Many will argue that this cannot be the meaning of life, that humans are not guided only by their genes. I counter those thoughts with the knowledge that everything comes from our genes. Even the feeling many say is achieved through anything but biology: love.

Genes cause the first step towards love, the carnal attraction that comes with the animal inside every human being. Without this burst of attraction, love would be impossible because there would be no need to satisfy. Humans and animals alike thrive on survival. Dawkins explains this through the idea of competition. The earth’s size is finite, and thus every species must fight for their piece of land, this is, after all, what we are designed to do. Genes are meant to survive, that is the reason life has appeared on earth, the genes’ need to maintain itself alive is the drive of every species.  Humans or any animal for that matter, don´t do anything without a need to quench.

Why are humans different to animals then? Simple: we have more needs, and through time we have learned to exploit them. Curiosity is the main need that affects our separation from other animal species.

How does this prove the previous point on love? Genes spur the need humans have for love in the form of physical attraction, having this need is the first step towards a relationship and thus appears love. So it is safe to say that genes actually do create love. They create everything inside us.

The idea of the “Selfish Gene” is interesting and most likely correct, if it wasn’t so the human race would be extinct. The proof of this gene is clearly traced through years of human’s taking over the world without blinking. The only thing that is exempt from our genes in our train of thought, which in turn gives us the single most important ability a man has: the ability to choose. 

Hypocritical

"I am the best-tempered man there ever was, yet I have already killed three men..."

Sure Candide, you really are one of the best-tempered men I've ever heard of. 

Not only did the irony of this whole chapter make my stomach ache with laughter, it also made me realize how many false expectations we have of ourselves every day. We would all like to believe the best things about us, as Candide obviously does. Sadly, sometimes we fail to see how wrong we are about ourselves. 

I am strong.

I am not prejudiced.

I am always in a good mood. 

I most certainly do not have my mother's temper.

Oh, how naive I have been sometimes.

How sad that we never really know ourselves, let alone each other. Why is it that Voltaire seems to point out so many bitter truths? Why is it that everything he says in the book, contains a double meaning which I believe we can all relate to?

Throughout the years I have found that most of the statements I use to describe myself are merely an image of what I want to be, not what I really am. Voltaire strongly agrees with what I am saying because he clearly ridicules that aspect of humans with Candide's claims to be "the best-tempered man there ever was." As I read I realized how pathetic humans (yes, I include myself in the generalization) really are. 

The author points out the hypocrisy that lives in all of us, as we claim to be better people than we are, yet hate the ones who do exactly the same thing. We live by our views on people, and the images we have in our head. Images about the way life should be, images which portray how everything should work, images which make us believe to be something we have never been.

Whatever happened to no hypocrites?

Please, the day there is no hypocrisy on this planet is the day humans become extinct.

We are a species which is completely hypocritical in every aspect for our lives: we pray for common good yet expect to have the very best for ourselves,  we say that prejudices are wrong but deep inside we know that we have prejudiced at least once, we claim to be the smartest animals on the planet… But I don’t see the other animals slowly killing it all, do you?

This hypocrisy is obviously what Voltaire is targeting with Candide’s words, and as a part of the hypocritical human population I want it to stop. But is there a way to stop it anymore?

Try, for just an hour to act with everything you’ve ever said. Try to stand by all your comments without being a complete hypocrite about one of them.

Hard isn’t it???   

Hakuna Matata

Why do we all choose to live? Why is it that the people with the worst lives keep fighting for an existence so awful, that they wouldn't miss anything if they were dead? "... is there anything more stupid that to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away...?"(pg. 57)

Voltaire questions all these ideas in Candide and I found myself analyzing everything he said. Sometimes, things happen to us and there is nothing we can do to change it or make it better, yet we still hang on to the last strings of hope, even though we know it is no use. This is clearly pathetic in Voltaire's point of view, and thus he writes the whole passage of the old woman's tales with a strongly ironic voice, obviously claiming that she should just go ahead and kill herself. 

Past relationships, fights, losses, disagreements...

We hang on to them all as if they were needed in our lives, we hang on to every little miserable detail in the world and that is what Voltaire is protesting. It is also what I find makes life beautiful.

What would we be without our past to make us who we are? What would we have if those grudges, crushed dreams, doomed relationships, and losses weren't by our side?

We would have nothing, we would be no one. 

This part of the book, not only got me thinking about the way we hold on to life, but the way we hold on to the past. It reminded me (as weird as this may sound) of The Lion King and two of my all-time favorite characters: Timon and Pumba. 

"Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase!

Hakuna Matata! Ain't no passing craze!

It means no worries, for the rest of our days...

It's our problem free, philosophy..." (Timon and Pumba- The Lion King)

I have to admit it, that song still makes me happy every time I have a problem with my family or friends. I find this "philosophy" very interesting, but I also find that it should not be taken literally. As I mentioned before, we would be nothing without our past and therefore we should never forget it completely, we should however, stop living in it. 

Somehow we all have to move on, and that's why I disagree with Voltaire's view on the miseries of life. That’s why I so strongly disagree with suicide. I find it a cowardly act, an act in which a person just can’t own up to his past and thus decides to run away from it all. The past can make us smile, or cry, or even shake our fists in anger at the unfairness of it all. The past can be sad and it can be happy. The past can be many things but if there is something I truly believe in: it’s that we should never bail on life because of it.

"Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it: you can either run from it... or learn from it..." (Rafiki- The Lion King)