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?

From Active to Passive

1. Children cannot open these bottles easily.
2. The government built a road right outside her front door.
3. Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.
4. When she arrived, the changes amazed her.
5. The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.
6. The party will celebrate his retirement.
7. His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him.
8. My son ate all the homemade cookies.
9. Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.
10. Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.

1. The bottles can't be opened easily by the children.
2. A road was built by the government right outside her front door.
3. The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.
4. She was amazed by the changes as she arrived.
5. Street repairs are being made by the construction workers all month long.
6. His retirement will be celebrated at the party.
7. His oral exam was being discussed by his professors right in front of him.
8. The homemade cookies were all eaten by my son.  
9. The hull of the ship had been damaged by Corrosion.
10. While I was there, the homestead was being visited by some children.

Candide The Gangsta

Nay, nay, nay Candide, I´m disappointed. I thought I could trust you but you had to flush my trust down the toilet and kill all of those three men. Who could have thought that a boy (or manly man, I should say) out of the blue would kill Cúnegonde´s brother? Not me, not me.

HOW DARE YOU KILL TWO PRIESTS. That is unholy, illegal, forbidden. Do you not understand? Have you got something with the church going on? If you have, say it to my face, c´mon.

Candide is not a predictable character. Honestly, I like that. The thing with predictable is that you always know what they are going to do. At first, I thought he was just an ignorant kid who did not know much about life, or pretty much anything. Then he became part of the Bulgars (WOAH BADA** OVER HERE) and then became a self-hero. Then became Captain Candide. What does that boy have going on? Its always him who gets ¨saved by the bell¨ or ends up alive. And even after all of these acts of bravery, he still manages to be naive as he is.

Then he dies. LOL, JK. But seriously, next time, I hope his toilet doesn´t flush.

Y U Doin´This Voltaire? U Wanna Get Caught?

Writing a blog is almost complicated as understanding the book, sometimes. Voltaire keeps fooling and playing with my intelligence. Every time he says something ironic, absurd or exaggerated, I know he is messing with me and he knows I have to read the joke two times to get it. Having that said, I will continue with my eternal search for writing the perfect blog (if there is such) about a satirical book. Challenge accepted.

For me there is nothing like reading a book where the author makes fun of the elite hierarchy. In this case, Voltaire always depicts princesses and those who know-nothing as the wiser ones. For example, when he quotes the astute old lady: ¨While the old woman was speaking with the prudence which age and experience confer...¨ (page 60). He spoke of her that way because she gave the greatest of advices to Cúnegonde by saying she should marry a rich Governor and desert the horrible life that would pursue her.

Just to give you a clue, he was being sarcastic. Sarcasm, as a matter of fact, is very common in this book. I figured that maybe by saying that he was insinuating that he did not support the fact of women ¨staying in the kitchen.¨ I´m glad. I am not the most feminist and sexist person of all times, but I do support the fact of them working hard and building a name.

Don´t just read, nod your head and agree with what I just said, consider the time Voltaire was in when he wrote Candide. There was extreme sexism and women were not allowed to do anything. He said things priests still consider unholy. But his subtleness, I guess, saved him from being one of those maniacs that just wanted to fool around with the church. Pshh, like seriously dude, get someone of your height.

I mean, really, what was that Copernicus guy thinking with that whole ¨heliocentric¨ theory thing? There are some crazy people out there, don´t wanna touch ´em.

Take it Easy, Bro.

Suicide. Is it really that horrible? I think it is too mainstream and overrated. No, I am not saying that suicide is an act of cowardice, but people take it to a public extreme where it seems to me that they are even bragging about it. This doesn't apply to the Old Lady case, I just wanted to get that off my chest.

"I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life." (page 57) I am almost completely sure, that everyone, even as stupid as it looks like, everyone has thought that. Having suicidal thoughts is not only for the depressed, I can assure you that at least once we've all thought "It would be better if i didn't have to go through this. I bet they would miss me. What then? Huh?" I've done it, and I can admit it. But I'm just so stupid that I have gotten taken away by the beauty of life, and at some moments I am in love with it. (First and last time I say that. Ever)

Of course, there is no point of comparison between an Old Lady who once was a princess and lost it all, and me. I live a perfectly normal life, but we all have troubles.

Anyways, I take that sentence literally its just that people over think it too much and end up philosophizing about the labyrinth of life. I sense that what Voltaire honestly meant was that people have the capacity of reaching that level of stupidity. Guilty.