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. 

Is Candide Innocent?

Is candide really as naive as we thought? Some of his actions have made me question his innocence.  He has already killed 3 people through out the story. “I have already killed three men, an two of them were priests!”(pg.67) And after every bad action he automatically regrets it and starts acting all innocent again. “O God! What have I done! I have killed my old master, my friend, and my brother-in-law!” (pg.67)This is a little hypocrite to me. Why would he kill him if he is going to "regret" it in a second?

 Maybe Voltaire wants to express the idea that because someone seems harmless, it does not mean they truly are. For example, there have been plenty of scandals in the news about children who commit homicide. The fact that they are just “naive” children, somehow justifies their actions. But in my opinion, they are just as bad as a grown up criminal.  When an honorable and “good” person does something wrong, people don’t judge them as much. They just assume something happened to them in that ocation. But the fact that they were good people before, somehow softens the situation.  But if a really bad person does something bad, then people get mad and want justice. I think this behavior is what Voltaire is targeting.

Candide is not innocent at all. Yet through out the book we forget about all the bad stuff he does and just see him as the unimpeachable candide. Even after he has made several mistakes, Voltaire still portrays him as an innocent character. But once you ignore candide’s personality and analyze his actions, you will realize his "innocence" fooled us. Candide is anything but innocent.

A Little Too Optimist

There is something about candide that has bothered me a little. It is the way that all tragedies are given so little importance. Its like if Candide suddenly forgets everything that has been happening to him all along.  Tragic situations are written in such way that makes them sound unimportant.  Things like death and torture are just casually mentioned as if they had no true importance.

“ ‘One night when i was fast asleep in bed, the Buglers (by grace of god) arrived at our lovely Thunder-ten-tronckh and slaughtered my parents.’ “ (Pg. 40)

The way that Cunegonde easily mentions the horrible death of her parents is simply crude. She went through so much, she was raped and her family was killed. Yet she just talks about her story without a single care in the world.

“Pangloss was hanged” (Pg. 37)

Candide’s mentor and companion dies. Even dough Pangloss could be considered as an important character, he simply dies. No explanations, no grief.

I understand that this is an important part of the satire in the book. I see it as absurdity. No one would ever be able to face tragedy with in such a careless way. This attitude just adds up to the extreme optimism that Candide portrays.  It helps us understand the absurdity of Candide’s optimist attitudes. 

Panglossian

“Candide trembled like a philosopher...”(pg.25)

After reading up to chapter 6, I am completely sure that Voltaire has something against naïve philosophers. He uses Satire to target the ways of optimistic philosophy. “...here was a young philosopher utterly ignorant of the way of the world.” (pg.24) Here he is clearly using irony. A philosopher needs to understand the way of the world. He is supposed to study the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Not only does Voltaire criticize philosophy itself, he also uses a character to mock other aspects of a philosopher. This character is called Pangloss, described as  “the greatest philosopher in Westphalia and consequently the greatest in all the world.” To me, this sounds a little sarcastic if we consider the fact that all of Pangloss's explanations are a little absurd.  He tries to explain all tragic experiences with his buoyant explanations:

   “…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)

   “…everything is for the best.” (Pg. 35)

   “… in this best of all possible worlds, his lordship’s country seat was the most beautiful of all   mansions and her ladyship the best of all possible ladyships.” (Pg.20)

The fact that he still believes in all this theories after undergoing so much tragedy, makes me think hi is really naïve.

As I looked up synonyms of “optimistic” for my writing, I discovered something rather interesting.  “Panglossian” is actually a synonym of “optimistic”. Having seen this, I decided to look up the definition on “pangloss”. It is: person who is optimistic regardless of the circumstances.

After doing a little research, I came upon the fact that Voltaire himself was a philosopher. Why would he target philosophers if he was one himself? I think he was just targeting the optimist and naïve kind of thinkers such as Pangloss.  All his explanations of life are way too optimistic and Voltaire makes them sound absurd.  Perhaps what he is really targeting is not philosophy but optimism. He thinks people should be more down to earth. I also got the following message from Voltaire’s writing: People look up to philosophers. They are seen as wise and reliable men. Having this position, they shouldn’t sell optimism to people. It will just make people panglossian.

Humor? Or Critique?

My father has always been a very sarcastic person. I have become used to hearing that type of humor, yet I never imagined my father’s ironic jokes would ever be useful.  But as I started reading Candide, I thanked him in my head. I was able to perceive all the sarcasm and irony that were camouflaged among the text.  

The first thing I thought when I got to chapter 2, was that the book reminds me of Charles Chaplin. I saw one of his films, “The Great dictator”. It used satire to target Hitler and Nazism.  Even dough he was being funny, I could tell his jokes were more of a critique.  As I saw this film, I was constantly aware of looking at the message within the humor. That is how I feel as I read Candide. I always need to be aware to perceive the actual purpose of their jokes. For example: “Those who have never seen two well-trained armies drawn up for battle, can have no idea of the beauty and brilliance of the display.”(Pg. 25) Here Voltaire is applying sarcasm. We all know that war is not beautiful and definitely not brilliant. His sarcastic joke is actually a critique to war and how people perceive it.

Throughout the book, the term “sufficient reason” has been used multiple times.

“Finally, the bayonet provided ‘sufficient reason’ for the death of several thousand more.” (Pg. 25)

Characters use it to justify certain actions that may be inadequate.  I’m sure it is used in an ironic way, I’m just not really sure of its meaning. That is one of my main questions right now. It reminds me of the “so it goes” in Slaughterhouse Five. I really hope that by the end of the book I will understand the true meaning of “sufficient reason”.