So it went.

The third chapter of Flaubert's A Simple Soul, is titled Death. Not surprisingly, two people die in this chapter. One is Victor, the cousin. And the other one is Virginia, Madame Aubain's daughter.

Something that can be immediately deduced from the chapter is that Flaubert believes that death doesn't care. Similarly to Vonnegut. Who presenced so many deaths that they lost their importance. Except that in this story, Felitice does care. This tells a lot about Felicite as a character. (Connecting it to what we learned today in class.)

I'd say that Felicite is very naive and sweet. She worries about others, probably more than what she worries about themselves and she feels overwhelmed with a world that is stronger than her. This explains why she doesnt complain, even when she dislikes something and also why she fears God's wrath. Felicite knows that deep in the end she could be harmed in any ways and that is why her contact with death is so important. It probably makes her realize that she's not going to stay there forever.

My prediction would be that she will leave the house. She will finally start living a life for her own and follow her dreams. Yet, she could instead maintain her attitude towards life, and towards others and feel consumed in the inside by his desire to act, that she is forced to retain in spite of her fear.

Either one, her experiences with death will add more depth to the story and to herself.

A simple Soul?

I've read the first two chapters of Flaubert's A Simple Soul, and I am guessing that there is a connection between the title of the book, with the way that Felicite, (the main character) is, and the meaning of her name.

First of all, I'd say that Felicite has something to do with happiness. (As 'felicidad' in Spanish.) Now, she is very simple. Or, very uncomplicated. She doesn't really complain and enjoys here humble job. In fact, she is very kind with the majority of the people and again, she looks like a simple person.

The connection would be that she is happy being a simple person. Now, I am left with a question? If we already know what she is like, and by being simple she isn't prone to adventure, or action, then what would be the plot of the story?

I hope that it is not one of those stories that doesn't have an interesting plot. I mean, it could still signify nothing, but could at least attract the reader. Anyhow, I would also like to say that I don't enjoy stories that have women as main characters for the simple fact that I am not one and thus, cannot connect that much with the story as if it where with a male character. (I hope that no one sees this as chauvinism.)

Finally, I would like to say that I find this style very opposing to Carver's and Pynchon's because Flaubert is indeed very descriptive, and uses it to create vivid images on the story but yet, he doesn't take advantage of the silences, like Carver, and doesn't distract himself with other topics, or over-talks meaningless things as Pynchon. (By the way, when I say meaningless I mean that it is irrelevant to the topic, not that it is a bad thing.)

Perception of life

The other day I was thinking on how your situation changes your perception of life. If you are extremely rich, for example, you will surround yourself of a similar environment. You'll most likely never know how different can the world get and never really appreciate the small things in your life. On the other hand, there are people who remain ignorant of the rest of the world because they are 'poor'. These are people that have enough money to maintain themselves but would never dream of having a car, of having computers, or even of traveling away from their neighborhood.

Impresively enough, there are people that live in both of these ways, here in Bogota. For the first example, I'd say, mostly little rich kids. Those that arent old enough to experience a different reality and thus take for granted everything that surrounds them. As for the second example, there are all those 'barrios' in between el "Colegio San Carlos" and "San Andresito". (Just to mention a few.)

Everyone experiences alternate realities that form our whole consciousness. Or in another words, 'the objective reality'. Or do we? Cathedral, one of Carver's finest stories is a story based on the interaction between a blind person, and the main character. A blind person wont experience the same reality that we do, and the drawing of the cathedral on the story reinforces this idea.

Someone who's born blind doesn't get to see how ANYTHING looks like. As opposed to you closing your eyes and picturing something that you cant see. Because we already have an image or a set of images that create a picture in our brains. Well, if you've never seen something then you have absolutely no pictures in your mind at all times.

How strange would that be. To be able to touch, feel, smell, and even taste, but without any images of whatever it is you are 'connecting' with. Now that is a different reality. YOu dont miss not being able to watch, since you cant. But you are left 'alone', in a world which mainly revolves around visibility. You feel safe by watching. You fell that you are in control, when you can see things but when you cant, you are left without the ability to be free. To do whatever you want. (Unfortunately we cannot do whatever we want, in spite of society, but I'm guessing that you are following what my point.)

My question is then, how did the blind man experience the cathedral? The answer to that goes way beyond my level of understanding. I only know that it must be beautiful. Mystical, and fascinating. Confusing and crazy. But in the end, different.

We must firstly appreciate what we have. More than economically,we have to appreciate our loved ones, our eyes, our senses and basically, our lives. We should accept our reality and enjoy it. We have to value every single moment of our lives because after all, each moment is exclusive to ourselves and will never happen again. And besides that, do occasional close readings onto anything, because you'll never know how much stuff you can make up out of them.

Second Thoughts

Okay, first of all I must say that I liked The Compartment. First of all it is a really harsh story. It is about the reincounter of a father and a son who got onto a terrbile fight in which the father told him he would take his life if he had to.

First of all, that kind of fight is not common. Yet, it could happen. And now, the sons wants to meet his father. Probably with good intentions, and yet we dont know. And the father, Myers started having second thoughts as he was arriving the station on which he was supposed to meet him.

First of all, you ask yourself, why would any of them want to meet again. Specially the father. After that terrible fight. He had accostumed to live without him and didnt need him.

At the end of the story. With his second thoughts about getting down on the station and eventually not going. We can interpret that he didnt really wanted to meet him. Either for fear or for lazyness. He was willing to make up excuses to miss their reunion.

Since we dont know what did de son was going to do. We can only judge the father as a person who is completely careless and in my opinion has some messed up perspective towards life. Why? Because he´d preffer to stay unharmed than to do anything for his son.

To me, this means that the author doesnt believe on second chances, or at least is afraid of change. Of course we should be afraid of change. Change is painfull and yet, we must embrace it because it is nesesary on life.

Aside from this, you have to take chances in your life. Honestly, what would´ve happened to Myers if he would´ve gotten down on the station and decided to meet his son? At least he could´ve rested in peace knowing that he tried.

Once more, we are left with the intrigue as to what happens to both of them. And this is why I liked the story. Firstly because it teaches us, or at least me, to stop being cowards, and to act. And secondly, because you´ll never know if there was or wasnt a happy ending.

Hidden message?

After reading the first three stories on Carver's Cathedral I had the craziest idea. I am going to say that all the stories convey the same message. Marriage is an Illusion. Why?

Well, on the first story, Fran and Jack weren't a happy couple. He says that "She and I talk less and less as it is". (p. 26) . I hope I am not the only one who believes that not talking in a sign of problems in marriage...

Anyways, the second story shows how a couple that isn't married anymore can still have great times together. And forget about anyone else.

On Preservation. You experience the way the wife feels in respect to his marriage. The feeling I got from reading the story was that she wasn't happy but couldn't do nothing about and thus had to preserve it.

On Feathers, we see marriage doesn't ensure happiness. On Chef's House, we see that a good relationship can be achieved without being married at the moment. And finally, In Preservation, we see that people can even 'suffer' in spite of marriage. And feel overwhelmed by its power to do anything about it.

For instance, I don't believe in marriage. When I grow up I wouldn't marry legally. Just share my life with a partner. People shouldn't let themselves be controlled by ridiculous society ideas or expectations.

Honestly we should do whatever we want.

Edna & Wes

Reading the book reminds of the typical love story in which the guy makes a mistake and decides to change for the love of his life. She ends up going although she feels it is a mistake. She ends up going.

At the end of the book, you never know what happens to the two of them. It just ends. I guess that style also includes the ideas behind the book.

Carver is leaving us with no answer at all. We decide we end. Or do we? Maybe we have to base the end on the facts presented on the story. I don't know if it is because I've seen too many movies, or that I am a man that makes me think that he wants her back.

I don't care if he has someone else. Or whatever impediments are present. They must get back together or his invitation was useless.

Honestly, If we could talk to Wes. Even if he told me that he was only thinking on being friends or whatever. I wont buy it...

Again, I ask myself. Will this story have a happy ending, or a sad ending?

I don't want any feathers, thankyou...

Honestly, I know that the idea of reading this is evaluating style rather than content (and that must be the case since there isnt any content at all) but I must say that this is one of the worst stories I've read.

It is inbetween a girl's movie in which nothing happens, and talking to a def person. Honestly, I dont mean to offend the books or anything but i felt that I had to say it. Everything said is completely unsignificant. I've seen that many times.

In The Crying of Lot 49, the whole book has no meaning but at least it is entertaining.. I even believe that may have some meaning behind it. And if there wasnt. Then at least Pynchon has a great style. He tends to talk, and talk. And its addictive.

In Feathers, including the fact that nothing has any relation to anything, the way he writes is perfect if you want to go to sleep.

My last comment will have to be that I hope that this guy didnt make money from this book because I'd be pissed.

Prisoner's dilemma

I simply loved this game...

I found it very inspirational. Everything in the world runs by laws similar to the games. Off course that consequences aren't as severe, or prizes aren't as big. But in the world, you depend on the way others interact with you to either succeed or fail.

There are many variations in which you experience the game in your life and thus, different ways in which you play it. For example, there is the interaction with people that are your friends. No matter what, most of the people wont put down the friends for their own benefits. Either they will handle the problem alone, or ask them for help. Or if you have to compete with your friend. You wouldn't do it with the wrong intentions.

On the other hand, there are the people that you don't know. There are two choices. Depending on your prospects on the future with them. If you like them, you wouldn't "defect" them either. (Obviously there are exceptions.) On the other hand, if you feel angry or hostile to them, which according to Freud is the common attitude in humans towards the people you don't know, you'll must likely defect at the expense of your own benefit. Expecting that the other will defect too.

The flaw that I saw compared to the game we played in class, was that first of all, the kind of interaction changes if you can talk with other people first. This is what happens most of the times on the real world. For instance, you might defect at first, but you could change your mind and cooperate before the action is complete.

Emotions, relations and socialization affect the way the game is held. You will encounter much less cases in which you cooperate or defect with someone whom you cant see. If you cant see them and you don't know them, the most probable choice would be to defect in protection.

As we've learned in chapter 10, i think. Grudgers are the ones that get more representation on the gene pool. Because they help who helps them but don't kiss as and let others exploit them. This is the attitude you are supposed to take in the game to win the most, or at least loose the less.

Dawkins says that nice guys finish first... why? Because they cooperate until the other person defects and then they defect. This is very much related to grudgers. But with a better name. They help but wont help if the other doesn't. In my opinion though, the nice guy wont gain more points than his opponent because he will act in base of his actions and therefore will be always second. Yet, it may not be bad depending the case. When it is a case that you need lots of money per say, but don't necessarily need more than the other, it does work. On the other hand, if your goal is to beat the other one, this strategy would most likely make you loose.

Anyways. I just wanted to express my thoughts about this dilemma. I'll be definitevely thinking on this for the future...

Memes; the missing piece of the human puzzle

This is the information I was expecting. I have mentioned in previous blogs that as humans, we are not doing what is best for our genes. Finally I got an answer...

With humans, and the development of culture. New things were replicated and didnt have anything to do with genetics. That's where memes come into place. They are the corresponding to genes, that pass on ideas, songs, fashion, etc. from one brain to another.

This is the reason why humans don't focus that much on genes. (That is, follow their instincts, and yet I am not saying that humans are not instinctive.) Since our brains, and our minds dominate our actions. We have different prospects in life. That is to replicate our ideas, etc. in the meme pool.

Memes are the ones that mold our lives. For example God. It was implanted, or 'mutated' on individual humans life way back in history. Now, a vast majority of the people believe in the existence of a God, or at least gods.

Religion indeed regulates the way in which we live. And therefore, memes, in humans are far more influential than genes. This is also because memes are able to 'replicate' faster than genes do and create an impact quicker, on more people.

This makes me wonder about the power we have as humans against nature and 'stability' on it. By the way, i say stability because it is the way in which things have worked quite well. Doing it differently is more likely to bring chaos to the system as I've mentioned in my previous blogs.

I am glad to know that Dawkins accepts the differences in humans. like he says on the last paragraph, that "we are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators". (pg. 201)

This means that we are overthrowing the stability. And as we are able to end with the tyranny of our replicators. We will do the same as we gain full power. The fact that we are so different than other animals, and that we are able to alter nature for our own benefit. (as Freud mentions on "El Malestar en la Culura".) Makes us dangerous and unstoppable.

(By the way,I'm still worried by the destiny of humanity...)