Connections Start to Form

Calvino already told us that his cities are related, maybe even implied the existence of only one city. “Kublai Khan had noticed that Marco Polo’s cities resembled one another, as if the passage from one another involved not a journey but a change of elements.” (pg.43) As I see it, this passage says the following: Calvino knows that the author has started to see certain connections between the cities. He did not need to travel through new ideas and inspiration for each city. Each of them is the same idea with different elements. These elements could be perspective. Maybe, the cities are meant to take live according to our interpretations. “But what enhanced for Kublai every event or piece of news reported by his inarticulate informer was the space that remained around it, a void not filled with words. The descriptions of cities Marco Polo visited had this virtue: you could wander through them in thought, become lost, stop and enjoy the cool air, or run off.” (pg.38)

I decided that I was going to look for things that connected cities with each other. I noticed small connections, like for example both Armillia and Isaura have a vertical structure and they both have pipes that rise up. Another connection I noticed is the constant presence of water in all cities. Wells, lakes, bathtubs etc. Reading Viviana Correa’s blog (http://vivianacorrea-eng10.blogspot.com/2012/06/women-in-city.html) helped me realize the connection of women. All cities are named after woman, and most of them contain a woman In their description. Is section 3, I noticed that this trend a little bit more. The section starts with Cities and Desire, a city called Zobeide, were men came chasing a dream of a perfect woman. The rest of the cities also include woman as a symbol of desire. This may be Calvino’s way of showing that the element of one city, is present in al the rest. With woman, he shows the elements of Cities and Desires are present in the other cities as well. Maybe in section 4, he will show how the elements of Cities and Signs are present in other cities as well, and so on.

Why would Calvino be describing so many cities if in the end they are only one? I think that to be able to understand this, I need to understand the figurative and Meta literary meaning of a city within this book.  I think that once we understand what cities stand for, we will understand the message of the book. Do they stand for a certain aspect of literature? For literature in general? Or do they stand for ideas?

Inception

On Friday, we discussed invisible cities in class. My previous assumptions were not really correct. I learned that this book is an example of Meta literature. This term refers to literature that talks about itself. With this idea in mind, I read the dialogues between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan all over again.  It all made so much sense now. The very first dialogue between them starts like this:  " Kublai Khan does not necessarily believe everything Marco Polo says when he describes the cities visited in his expeditions, but the emperor of the Tartars does continue listening to the young venetian with greater attention and curiosity than he shows any other messenger or explorer of his." Who are the only two people involved in the reading of a book? The author and the reader. Therefore, we may conclude that Marco Polo stands for Calvino and Kublai Khan stands for us.  For example, the phrase I quote above, in a meta-literary way, would be telling us that we may not really believe or understand what Calvino wrote. But he assures us that we will keep reading out of curiosity and that we will pay close attention to the writing.

                 ------->

                        ------->

The whole idea reminds me of a movie called inception. In the movie, a group of people has discovered how to extract information from other people by using their dreams. They create a dream within a dream to go deeper into the person's mind.  Just like that, Invisible cities is a story about a story. Here are some of the phrases that caught my attention and my meta-literary explanation for each:

“Marco Polo could express himself only with gestures, leaps, cries of wonder and of horror, animal barkings or hootings, or with objects he took from his knapsacks…” –Pg.21 Calvino has trouble expressing his ideas to us. He does it as good as he can, describing each city perfectly and trying to send a message.

He doesn’t expect us to make the connections right away, “The Great Khan deciphered the signs, but the connection between them and the places visited remained uncertain..”-Pg.22

 Calvino also assures us that his message will be clearer as we keep on reading the book. “As the seasons passed and his missions continued, Marco mastered the Tartar language and the national idioms and tribal dialects.”

“ “On the day when I know all the emblems,” he asked Marco, “shall I be able to possess my empire, at last?”

And the Venetian answered: “Sire, do not believe it. On that day you will be an emblem among emblems.” ” – Pg.23

Calvino clarifies that even if we manage to understand all the symbols and connections of this book, we will never conquer it. We will only be another symbol within the book. But if we think about it, Kublai Khan already symbolizes us in the book.

“The other ambassadors warn me of famines, extortions, conspiracies, or else they inform me of newly discovered turquoise mines, advantageous prices in marten furs, suggestions for supplying damascened blades. And you?” the Great Khan asked Polo “you return from lands equally distant and you can tell me only the thoughts that come to a man who sits on his doorstep at evening to enjoy the cool air. What is the use, then, of all your travelling?” Calvino understands that the reader will compare him with other authors. We will naturally question the purpose of a book like Invisible Cities. It is different from everything we have ever read. And Calvino was right to assume the reader would have this question. I myself keep wondering what all there cities will finally lead to. 

Is There a Purpose?

After reading the first section, I was a little confused with the nature of the book. It is nothing like I have ever read. I was able to understand what was written. I was able to picture the cities in my mind. But I was unable to understand the purpose of these cities, or what is the connection between them for making a story. As I finished, I realized that there was no story, no purpose. I did come up with my own understanding of the writing. I don’t know I my assumptions are correct or not, but I will share them anyway. 

The first assumption I made was inspired by this sentence "all this beauties will already be familiar to the visitor, who has seen them also in other cities." this made me think that all cities are actually one, but in the eyes of different kinds of people. Out of this thought, I concluded that the title referred to all the "invisible" cities that lie within one.  The message I got while reading was that you make your own city. According to someone’s attitude they will live their lives in cities & memory or in cities & signs etc. For example, a person who lives their lives thinking about yesterday will be trapped in cities & memory. A place where happiness is not real and where “Desires are already memories.” – pg. 8 A person who has unlimited desires would live in Cities & Desire, where its variation signifies how everyone has different desires and where people are always wanting what others have.

I am pretty sure that there is much more to this book. Just how the author gave us two different ways of reading it, there are probably different ways of interpreting its content. I can’t wait to finish this book and find out what all these cities are really about. 

Genes Are Selfish, Are We?

In 1809, Jean Baptiste Lamarck had a hypothesis about the inheritance of acquired traits. He thought that by the selective use or disuse of organs, organisms could acquire or lose certain traits during their lifetime. But Richard Dawkins clearly disagrees with this idea. “Genes do indirectly control the manufacture of bodies, but the influence is strictly one way: acquired characteristics are not inherited.” (pg.23).  Imagine if we could pass our traits on to our children. Although it would be interesting, it would also be chaotic. We would have a way of controlling evolution. If we want our offspring to be really fit, we could work hard at the gym to become strong. This acquired trait would be passed on to your future generations.  But this idea would not always be good. Imagine you were in an accident and lost an arm. Your children would also be born without an arm. But thankfully, “Each new generation starts from scratch.”(pg.23).

“The evolutionary importance of the fact that genes control embryonic development is this: it means that genes are at least partly responsible for their own survival in the future, because their survival depends on the efficiency of the bodies in which they live and which they helped to build”(pg.25).  The way that Dawkins talks about the human body as if it were just meant for the good of genes, seems a little unusual to me. But once I think about it, it actually helps me understand our actual purpose. Scientifically, the purpose of life is to survive and reproduce.  That is all our genes care about, they need us to survive to a certain age were we can reproduce and they can live on, which seems pretty selfish. No wonder the title of the book is The Selfish Gene. But if our genes are selfish, does it mean that we are all truly selfish deep inside? 

Nothing

“In the beginning was simplicity. It is difficult enough explaining how even a simple universe began. I take it as agreed that it would be even harder to explain the sudden springing up, fully armed, of complex order-life, or a being capable of creating life.”-pg. 12

When I started reading this book, all sorts of questions about existence popped into my mind. Why are we alive? How is it possible that simple molecules formed a human being? where did these molecules even come from? Ever since I was a child I have wondered about the origin of everything we know. I would always ask my father about what there was before the universe. He would simply tell me, there was nothing there. I was (and still am) intrigued by the  thought of nothing. What is nothing? At first I would relate the concept to a huge open space submerged in darkness. But then I realized darkness is something, so that couldn’t be.  I guess nothing would be complete transparency. No colors, nothing at all.  But for a moment try to picture this in your mind. What was there before there even was a universe?  I find it impossible to picture.

 Dawkins starts explaining us how when atoms meet they may undergo a chemical reaction and become a molecule. One day, a new molecule was created by accident. It was the replicator. It was a special type of molecule that could create copies of itself. These molecules had a competition of who had the best survival machine. Dawkins refers to us as the genes survival machines. “They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.” –pg. 20  This makes me feel as if we were actually controlled by the genes. It sounds as if they are the real person, and you were only created to protect them and give them something to control. 

Optimism Vs. Pessimism

When Candide is going to travel to Venice, he needs someone to accompany him. Here is were Martin is introduced to the story. He is a poor scholar who has been living a pretty tragic life. He is somehow similar to Candide, considering the fact that they both live tragedy after tragedy.  But then I noticed a mayor difference between them. While Candide is Naive and very optimistic, Martin seems to have a realistic view upon life.  Finally, there is a character that is not drowning on its own optimism.

“ ‘What a pessimist you are!’ Exclaimed Candide.

   ‘That is because I know what life is,’ said Martin.”

Candide is a little confused by Martin’s pessimism. He was used to Pangloss and his absurdly optimistic theories. While Pangloss constantly reminded Candide about all the positive things in a situation, Martin points out the crude reality in them. This actually makes me like Martin. I was a Little tired of so much absurd optimism. There were plenty of situations that were frustrating me already.  For example, the way Candide just decides to trust people and gives away his money so easily.  I’m pretty sure Voltaire would want me to laugh at Candide, but actually I want him to stop being so naïve. Hopefully, Martin will somehow make Candide understand that not everything is for the best.

The comparisons between these two characters made me wonder: Is it better to be a pessimist or an optimist? As an optimist you will probably be a happier person. You will see the best in every scenario and if things go wrong, you will always turn things around. As a pessimist, you will be prepared for any situation. If things go wrong, you already predicted it. But if they go right, you will be pleasantly surprised. I am more of an optimist, but I am not convinced it is the best option. 

Just a Post About My Opinions On Some Aspects of Candide

The content of the book is not the only thing that contains satire.  There are certain aspects of the actual book that are also satirical. For example, lets take a look at the titles of the chapters. Titles are supposed to briefly resemble what will happen, but never to give the content away. But Voltaire decided to make fun of this idea with his titles.  They are not ingenious or innovative at all. They are the complete opposite of what a good title should be. Ironic right? I know that Voltaire meant this to be funny. It is, but it still frustrates me a bit. The title just gives the whole content away! Here are some examples of these titles:

Chapter X: Describing the distressing circumstanses in which Candide, Cunegonde, and the old woman reached Cadiz, and how they set sail for the new world.

Chapter XV: How Candide killed the brother of his beloved Cunegonde

Chapter XVII: How Candide and his servant reached the country of Eldorado and what they saw there

They obviously give the story away. If you only read the titles of each chapter, I bet you would be able to understand the story.