Dante's Invisible Cities

                                                

And it is now we start to realize the whole truth about this indecipherable allegory. "Seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of the inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space." Section 9, page 165. DID YOU SEE THAT? HE SAID INFERNO. INFERNO, I TELL YOU.

Dante's Inferno shows many time unjust tortures that are inflicted on those who don't fit the Great Governor's eye. When in "Cities and Signs 4," Marco Polo says how when he went to the city of Hypatia, he saw beautiful women bathing but underneath them was water with crabs biting the eyes of the suicides, it very similar to a punishment in the other allegory. It is like Italo Calvino were trying to make a twisted allusion or he just tries to say that "good things," maybe such as beauty, aren't priceless.

I have found the answer. The cities have in common their attractiveness. There is not one normal city where there are no extraordinary topics involved. THEY ARE ALL ONE CITY. All because of Kublai Khan's desire for power. Besides, we always knew those cities were figurative stages of life. Just like in Inferno.  

Nothing But a Woman

Diomira
Isidora
Dorothea
Zaira
Anastasia
Tamara
Zora
Despina
Zirma
Isaura
Maurilia
Fedora
Zoe
Zenobia
Euphemia
Zobeide
Hypatia
Armilla
Chloe
Valdrada
Olivia
Sophronia
Eutropia
Zemrude
Aglaura
Octavia
Baucis
Leandra
Melania
Esmeralda
Phyllis
Pyrrha
Adelma
Eudoxia
Moriana
Clarice
Eusapia
Beersheba
Leonia
Irene 
Argia
Thekla
Trude
Laudomia 
Perinthia
Procopia
Raissa
Andria
Cecilia
Marozia
Penthesilea
Theodora
Berenice
 
Maybe the description of the cities doesn't exactly relate to one another...but what about their names? If you look closely, their typography is very similar. Also, when Marco Polo talks about them, it seems as he were describing a woman. And I don't know about you, but I would never name a man "Thekla" or "Isidora." They are clearly female names. 
 
The description of these women comes together and it could almost fit into the description of one woman. This could mean they are all one and these descriptions just form part of the way we perceive them/it. 
 
"Clarice, the glorious city, has a tormented history. Several times it decayed, then burgeoned again, always keeping the first Clarice as an unparalleled model of every splendor..." (Pg. 106, Cities and Names). For a person that hasn't read the book, they could assimilate it more to a woman...but, a city? Neh.

Meta Literaturally Speaking

Is meta literature a synonym to "paradox?" I would think so. One thing is always coming back to the other, it is a cycle that never ends. 

 "The more one was lost in unfamiliar quarters of distant cities, the more one understood the other cities he had crossed to arrive there." Says Marco Polo in page 28. As he talks about the cities, he is clearly referring to the book as well. The issue that drives me crazy is how I can understand what he means literally. But when it comes to the part of finding the analogy and the figurative side, that's the issue. What is the connection between these cities? What is their purpose? The very same Marco Polo  explains us "meta literaturally" that the more distant I am from finding the connection, the more I understand what I just read. Your past shapes your present and future. 

I feel you Kublai. "The connections between one element of the story and another were not always obvious to the emperor; the objects could have various meanings..." Believe me, I know how you feel. We both live in a world where the word "object" can symbolize...freedom. It's so many meanings yet so little "objects." Mr. Calvino, you didn't fool me this time...

And now, you do not get away with it. Yes, I know that we are Kublai Khan. I understood your evil plan, Kublai feels the same way we do about the book with his empire. HAH! Now who's fooling who? Good one man, good one. 

Let me add something to this blog entry. I am going to have to be completely honest here. When I read the book, it is all so parallel and abstract that I feel I am transported to a blank space where the whole story occurs. For example, in "Trading Cities 2" Chloe is a city where a thousand things and people roam disperse all over. Or "Cities and Names," where what was bizarre became normal. Yeah, that. It all occurs in my mind in a very peculiar place: nowhere. 

Interpret it the Way You Want To

Did you know that the word and theorem, "Pythagoras"  isn't only the type of math we use to solve triangles? Well, maybe you do since by its root you can tell it has a Greek origin. Actually, Pythagoras of Samos was a Greek philosopher, mathematician and the founder of the Pythagorean movement. Calvino talks about a "Pythagorean school" in Cities and Signs 1 (pg.14). I just though it was curious, because I had always referred to that term in a mathematical way. Every day we learn something new.

Anyway, beyond the whole analogy that is emitted to us in Invisible Cities, there is a single one with each literal meaning given by Marco Polo describing the cities. My way of interpreting those analogies is by relating it to the behavior of human kind. When he describes a city, as I said in my previous blog entry, it's like he were describing someone. More than that, he speaks of that city adding personification. And as bitter as the city may be, we are as well. For example, disagreeing with Pedro Michelsen, I would say "Isaura" is a city that shows how consumed human kind is in itself. It is not completely submerged in a lake, but it is in it. That is where it is visible how cities actually relate to emotions. Furthermore, the structure of the city also gives us tips to how to feel towards it.

"The city is redundant: it repeats itself so that something will stick in the mind." (pg. 19) says Marco Polo at the end of the first paragraph in "Cities & Signs 2." Then, at the end of the second paragraph he says: "Memory is redundant: it repeats signs so that the city can begin to exist." Does this means memory doesn't exist if one is not able to forget? This is how Marco Polo relates the cities with us. It is unquestionable that in a omniscient way, a reader is always the protagonist, if not antagonist of a story. What are we in this book?

Cittá Che Sono Invisibili

City: a large town. 

I have always respected the extraordinary. All those topics about dreams and dimensions amuse me. The way Italo Calvino portrays this topic, seems a little obscure. It is all so controversial and confusing, because Calvino himself is playing with our minds like Marco Polo is with Kublai Khan. "With cities, it is as with dreams: everything imaginable can be dreamed, but even the most unexpected dream is a rebus that conceals a desire or, its reverse, a fear." (P. 44) When Khan refutes to Polo about these cities he is coming up with, Polo comes up with this sentence. I don't know about you, but to me that's a little bit of inverse psychology. 

Invisible Cities. Cities that are invisible. How? Is that even possible? We have clear that it is all an allegory. But, to what? There are many clues Calvino has given us to build up an understanding as we read the book. He uses short descriptive sentences. He will never dare to generalize, as he just talks about specific moments or events. Also, he writes about these cities like they were people, or dreams that can take over you extremely easily. 

The main thing that sticks in my mind as I read, is how cleverly Calvino uses psychology. We see ourselves involved in something that doesn't correspond to us, but it does at the same time. He is fooling us all, expecting the reader to understand what this whole allegory is about. He got us inside a world where anything can happen, but we are absolutely unaware.  And mostly, we are unaware we are involved. 

Let's not forget his chapter order. Why would an author take his time to provide the reader with two ways of reading a book? Could it be two vantage points? What has me going mad, is the fact that I can understand literally every word. But why would he say it? Why in that way? The thing is, it is so abstract, that as much as I dig for a figurative reason, I. Won't. Find. It. 

I keep thinking it's some sort of paradox. 

Science Rules

Teacher: "Guys we're gonna read The Selfish Gene"
Students: "Ugh O.M.G. no what."

For most of us, science is um.....this:

The Selfish Gene is an informational text. The purpose of informational texts may be to simply transmit certain information to develop criteria or knowledge about something. But, what is the difference between an informational text and an expository or a narrative text? Is there really any? Talking about purpose, all books try to reach thinking in their readers, no matter through what means or topics. 

To be honest, "The Selfish Gene" is not the most striking title there is, but it does resume the book in a very simple yet interesting way. Having read the first three chapters, I infer that the title also connects somehow to  how Dawkins sees us as humans. Selfishness is a requisite for genes. That is, if they want to survive. And of course, since genes contain DNA, we had to inherit selfishness. 

"Like gene, like human."   

What If...?

We can look at science with many eyes and probably all we will ever see, is that it is just another lie.

I don't think science should be qualified as a belief. It is what it is. Also, I don't understand why people pay more attention to something that has no proof. Although, to be fair, science doesn't really have proof either. No one actually knows for sure what is going on in this world and why we are here. What is beyond the galaxy? Is it really a galaxy or is it something like the little world of Horton Hears a Who!? Why do we even exist? Because as far as I know, we aren't helping by any means some certain purpose nor are we doing something important. We just exist. What for? 

What I sense in The Selfish Gene is some kind of persuasion for us humans to be able to rely on science as a method of understanding. Beyond the physical aspects of science, there is a philosophy that tries to explain all of those questions. But, how do we know that we are doing the right thing? Scientists have spent centuries in trying to figure out numerous explanations to our existence. But how do they know that the answers they reach are correct?

Well, that's what Dawkins will try to explain, right?