Due Thurs Feb 2 by 11:59pm.
**Assignment note** Pick one of the following three options to respond to. I'd like a relatively even split, but I won't force it this time. As always, make sure your name's evident, 200-400 words.
I was going to simply quote William F. Bottiglia, but I like the summary of Bottiglia's contention made by Roy S. Wolper (both awesome names, by the way) in a 1969 article, "Candide, Gull in the Garden?" in Eighteenth Century Studies.
P. 265:
"Too much of the recent criticism of Candide has a magisterial certainty about it. William F. Bottiglia, whose long analysis is now considered 'fundamental and convincing,' believes that Voltaire 'ends by affirming that social productivity of any kind at any level constitutes the good life, that there are limits within which man must be satisfied to lead the good life, but that within these he has a very real chance of achieving both private contentment and public progress.' Bottiglia insists there is 'something wrong' with those whose conclusions differ from his own."
What say you? Agree, or is there "something wrong" with you? (Note: That's a joke... I really don't want a bunch of responses that simply say, "Bottiglia's right!" or accuse those of differing opinion to have some mental shortcoming. Disagree away... but convincingly!)
Edwin Trauth
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion is that Bottiglia’s commenting “that there are limits within which man must be satisfied to lead the good life” is an oversimplification of the seemingly abrupt end to Voltaire’s Candide. I can see that Bottiglia uses Candide’s apparent happy ending as a basis for his proclamation because as Pangloss says Candide is now able to be on his own farm “eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts.” Candide is seemingly living a humble life and making an honest living working the farm and as a result is happy and free from the torment that was so prevalent throughout the novella. I believe that this is indeed not what Voltaire intends the message of the book to be. The motivation for Candide’s travel and subjecting himself to all the hard times was to marry lady Cunegonde. Now that he has married Cunegonde he, and the rest of characters, are seemingly living a happy life. This contradicts Bottigalia’s claim because Lady Cunegonde was obviously not within the “limits” or social class of Candide. Candide ventured beyond that limits that Bottiglia speaks of, achieved his goal of marrying Cunegonde, and no matter how ugly she seems to be, they now have a happy life. Additionally when compared to the other places in the novella, with the exception of El Dorado (that Voltaire uses to bring about another point), Candide now has a better quality of life that the citizens of those cities. Therefore it can be inferred that possibly those citizens have lived with the “limits” and now are unhappy because of it. On the other hand Candide has reached beyond those boundaries and will now reap the benefits. This is a direct contradiction to Bottiglia’s idea.
Bottiglia completely misinterpreted the point Voltaire was trying to make. Voltaire is obviously being sarcastic through the whole ending. He's basically saying look at this guy who went through all these terrible things and spent all of his money to be stuck with a hideous woman. The only reason Candide wanted Lady Cunegonde was because she was beautiful and now he couldn't even have that. Sure, she learns to make candied fruit but that's it. I think the point Voltaire is trying to make is that you should stay put when you have it so great like he did in El Dorado. His life would have been much better had he stayed there. Now he's stuck for life with two bickering philosophers, an old hag and an ugly wife doing farm work. Candide is not a happy person in the end. He is alive but not living. Voltaire makes this point when illustrating Candide's conversation with the others about how it was much better to be getting beat and suffering all their horrors than it was to be sitting on a farm bored. The book as a whole could be interpreted to mean never settle or never give up. Candide is never happy even with the wonders of El Dorado. He keeps pushing and striving for more but then ends up with not much at all. I think in the end Voltaire is hinting to the fact that Candide will go on another great adventure because of his boredom. The ending is witty sarcasm. That's it.
ReplyDeleteIn a simple way I agree with Bottiglia. I think that everyone has certain limits in which they can attain happiness. Even though Candide ended in a sarcastic way I do believe Bottiglia has a point. Everyone doesn't have to attain the same things to be happy. Candide spent a lot of time being tourmented and having to deal with everything that could possibly go wrong most of the time going back to the saying that everything happens for a reason (even after being beaten, thinking Lady Cungonde was dead, getting put into the army). He dealt with a lot during the course of the story and at the end it really didn't take that much for him to be happy. With that said, I definately think that Voltaire was probably trying to emphasize a greater point or something different than that but I can totatlly understand where Bottiglia's analysis comes from. Do I believe that something is wrong with anyone who disagree? No, becasue I'm sure there is also some deeper, more sarcastic point behind the ending that wasn't interpreted by myself or Bottiglia.
ReplyDeleteIn the ending of Candide, it is very easy to draw the conclusion that Bottiglia finds. The group ends up living as a socialist community that is simply there to survive and for no other purpose. Borriglia would argue that Voltaire considers this “the good life.” I would argue, however, that the group, after enduring many evils of the world were not living the good life, but settling for a life that would not have them enslaved or beaten. Candide had seen the world and in every party of the world was treated horrible and came upon no one who had lived the good live, except for those who lived in El Dorado and were ignorant of the ways of other communities. When meeting with the farmer’s family in the last chapter, the farmer is content with continually working to keep away from the “three great evils- idleness, vice, and want.” The farmer isolates himself and his family, not because this is the life he wants and not because it is the good life. He does it because it is safe. He is running away from the rest of the world, and his own possible perversities by keeping to himself and staying busy. This is the same way that Candide and his followers end up. When Pangloss makes his final observation that everything that happened before led them to living this life, it is dismissed by Candide as a good observation, but there was not time to dwell on it because there was work to do. Throughout the story, Candide is in search of someone who is happily living the good life, but can never find a person. Bottiglia argues that in the end Candide himself does find the good life, in his own little social sphere. He is not living the good life; he is living as nothing. He merely exists without thought, which is demonstrated by the final line of the work.
ReplyDeleteJames Raff
Olivia Broderick
DeleteAfter finishing the novella "Candide", I agree, in part, with Bottiglia, a good life is achieved through social productivity. Every character in the story is miserable the entire time and it is only in the end when each has nothing else to strive for that they are somewhat content. Throughout the novella Pangloss continues to preach that, "everything is for the best", but at the end we finally learn that he no longer believes this. Pangloss and every other character has had so many terrible things happen to them that is would be unbelievable if any of them still found that to be true. At the end, each of Candide's companions from his adventures has settled down with him and the horribly disfigured Cunegonde. While none of them seem particularly happy, they are all have a role to play now. It is this part of Battiglia's argument that I agree with. While they are content, I do not necessarily believe that they are living the good life. Candide has lost all of his money, he no longer loves Cunegonde and has renounced the teachings of Pangloss. His entire life is more or less built on duty at this point. He isn't happy with his fate as much as he is content. I think that in ending his tale like this, Voltaire was trying to convey to his audience that the teachings of Leibnitz were not correct. Sometimes you strive for something for a long time and in the end you don't get it, or you get a lesser version of it, and there is nothing you can do to change that. I believe that each character is content with their life at the end, rather than living the good life.
Olivia Broderick
ReplyDeletesorry, that last one was only a reply because I couldn't find the comment button.
Leah Camarillo
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this specific exert from Bottiglia’s analysis of Candide. In the novella, Candide spends the majority of his time searching for who he believes to be the love of his life, Cunegonde. He is exiled from his home for kissing her, and then believes he her to be dead. Upon discovering her to be alive, she is taken away from him yet again. He becomes completely obsessed with trying to find her. In the search he is tortured, arrested, robbed and deceived. However, he believes that his efforts are not in vain because of his love for the beautiful Cunegonde. When he is finally able to purchase her freedom, he joins his loyal friends and settles down on a farm. By this time Cunegonde is no longer beautiful. Candide keeps his promise to her and marries her regardless. While living on the farm he meets and old man who describes his life to Candide. He explains that his family lives a life completely isolated from the world, but they are satisfied. It is likely that Candide is exhausted, both mentally and physically, from a lifetime of adventure and danger. He finds the old man’s life attractive and decides that he is going to spend the rest of his life on his own farm. He takes satisfaction in the fact that there is nothing wrong with his life even though he no longer has any passion or zeal. I believe that Candide is satisfied because he has completed the only task he ever had to live for, locating and marrying Cunegonde. Although his new life has no adventure or stimulation, Candide is satisfied with the safety, security, and tranquility of his lifestyle.
I am going to have to disagree with Bottiglia’s conclusion concerning the meaning of Candide. Bottiglia claims that “social productivity constitutes the good life”. What exactly does Bottiglia mean by “good life”. He can’t possibly be describing a life characterized by wealth and comfort. Voltaire clearly satirizes this definition in the Eldorado episode. So the “good life” then would have to be more of a mental state of mind. Everything is “good” in that person’s life/brain. Well, it is pretty easy to show examples of people that have tried to be socially productive yet who you would not describe as having a “good life.” A recent example is former GOP candidate Hermain Cain. His controversial ideas inspired thought among people and could definitely be described as socially productive. However, he is far from living the “good life”, in fact, his social productivity led to an increase in scrutiny on his life which ultimately led to his current state.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a much more accurate conclusion to the meaning of Candide: “Societies problems are so great that they are fundamentally unsolvable. The only way to fix is to basically reset” This conclusion paints Candide as less of a philosophical experiment and as more of a social commentary. Support for my conclusion can be easily seen in two way. One, no matter where Candide travels (in the real world), bad things always happen to him, therefore the problems of so pervasive that we cannot escape them, it is too late. Two, Candide life drastically improves when he starts over at the garden. He has created a new micro-society that does not have the problems that world around him suffers from.
Sean Roddy
I believe that Bottiglia interpreted Voltaire correctly. The only other people that are actually happy in their life in the entire book are the people that live in Eldorado and the honest dutch at the end of the book. The city of Eldorado cannot actually happen and therefore the way they achieve happiness can't happen. The fact that Utopia is translated to mean "nowhere" shows that Eldorado's happiness can't happen in real life. At the end of the book when Candide talks to the honest dutch farmer, he meets the first person in the entire book who is happy. I don't think Voltaire was being sarcastic about why the honest dutch is happy. Bottiglia is right when he infers that Voltaire is saying that man is content with his life when he is productive. Candide meets many characters throughout his travels but none are happy. Even the Venetian who has any material item he could possibly want is unhappy. Voltaire pokes fun at many stereotypes by being sarcastic toward the characters of these stereotypes. However, Voltaire is not sarcastic at the end of the novel and throws the dutch character into the novel, just to show what he thinks about man achieving happiness. When Candide is rich, he is not happy. When he gets Cunegonde, he is not happy. Even when he is in Eldorado, he is unhappy. Voltaire is showing that these things won't make you happy. "Private contentment and public progess" will though.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start by saying that the post contains too much jargon by Wolper and that my response is to the question I hope I am being asked. (Though I did not fully understand the last question either so maybe my vocabulary is too small)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement "social productivity of any kind at any level constitutes the good life." In the past I have cheated at video games to become the best with no effort and found that the "enjoyment" dose not last very long. To truly enjoy the game I had to just play it normal and progress slowly. This is like life in many ways because the good life varies on the person pursuing it. To one who grew up in a single parent household, driving in a car that YOU bought is awesome but to one whose parents had the money to buy a car for them enjoyment might come from having a good car or some other personal success. This is because the good life is the pursuit of happiness and not the outcome of it.
Though it would seem that none of the characters are living the good life at the end of the story that is only to us. The characters are accustomed to much worse and perceive even a poor but stable life as the best they can get and likewise what they should strive for.
In conclusion "the good life" is the pursuit of a goal and is oblivious to the outcome of this pursuit. As long as one maintains and strives for this goal while continuously changing it to fit ones new position there will always be moments where one is "living the good life." (Of course I have always been an optimist.)
There could be something wrong with me, but it seems there’s more things wrong with Bottiglia. Bottiglia announces that “any” form of social productivity is grounds for being labeled as part of the good life. However, it seems that this was not exactly trying to portray this in his book either. For example, Lady Cunogonde lived a miserable life including rape, enslavement, and becoming old. At one point she decided to leave Candide for her own fortune and be with a richer person. This can be seen as an attempt at making “productive” choices for her own “social” status. This turns out to be the wrong choice and she is left to become ugly and live a life without Candide.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is when Cacambo earnestly works hard to please Candide. He sets off to find Lady Cunogonde for him. A servant’s work is considered social productivity. But his hard work only leads to misery as he is kidnapped by pirates and becomes the slave of a dethroned king.
The only time there is evidence of “the good life” is when the characters live on a farm and become humbler and work hard. It seems Voltaire actually only sees good in meager work as long as it is far away from the overly fancy country France and evil minded Balgers and Germans.
Also, Voltaire is a racist and a women hater so it seems that he has no intention of seeing them live the “good life.”
-Duchuy Nguyen
I certainly agree with Bottiglia's analysis on Voltaire's portrayal of "what constitutes the good life". In Bottiglia's analysis, at the end of Candide one sees Voltaire attempt to proclaim that in order to have a 'good life' one must be productive and have limits. The reader sees that even after all the misery Candide and the other characters experienced, and even after they all lived in harmony and peace once again, misery still struck them. It was not until they found work, productivity, til this endless misery went away. This newfound work, that kept them busy, now consumed their lives, actions, and thoughts. No longer were they consumed with whether 'this was the best of all worlds' or 'good verses evil' thoughts. With productivity and work to be done, these thoughts became mere interruptions. It is this that Bottiglia's analysis explains, hard work, effort, labor, or any kind of 'productivity' allows for a good life. We must have productivity and limits so that perhaps they can consume our minds with work and not nonsense.That is why I agree with Bottiglia's analysis.
ReplyDelete